Michael Wayne Jackson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 18, 2024
• Docket: 11-24-00037-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed July 18, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-24-00037-CR __________

MICHAEL WAYNE JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 23772-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Michael Wayne Jackson, entered open pleas of guilty to evading arrest or detention with a vehicle and harassment of a public servant, third-degree felonies. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.11(b) (West 2019), 38.04(b)(2)(A) (West 2016). The trial court found Appellant guilty, and ordered a presentence investigation report (PSI) to be prepared prior to sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, the State relied solely on the PSI as punishment evidence, then Appellant and his sister testified. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment for each conviction at imprisonment for ten years in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court further ordered the sentences to run concurrently. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.08(a) (West Supp. 2023). Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record, and the mailing address of this court should he desire to file the motion for pro se access. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief, and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. As such, court- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant has not filed pro se responses to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1

1 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2 Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY CHIEF JUSTICE

July 18, 2024 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.