Michael Ray Hulgan v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Michael Ray Hulgan v. State

DecidedAugust 28, 2008

Docket14-07-01018-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Michael Ray Hulgan v. State (Michael Ray Hulgan v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Michael Ray Hulgan v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 28, 2008

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 28, 2008.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-07-01018-CR

MICHAEL RAY HULGAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 23rd District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 52,887

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury convicted appellant of felony driving while intoxicated. On October 5, 2007, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for eighteen years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-12 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than sixty days has elapsed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed August 28, 2008.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Guzman and Brown.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI