Michael Wayne Starnes v. State

CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 2017
Docket09-15-00407-CR
StatusPublished

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

Bluebook
Michael Wayne Starnes v. State, (Tex. 2017).

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-15-00407-CR _________________

MICHAEL WAYNE STARNES, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 258th District Court Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23,882 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 27, 2015, Michael Wayne Starnes was indicted for theft of

property, a Class C misdemeanor which was enhanced to a state jail felony due to

previous theft convictions. See Tex. Penal Code § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (West Supp.

2016).1 Trial began in this case on October 5, 2015. The jury found the evidence

sufficient to find Starnes guilty of the state jail felony offense of theft of property.

1 We cite to the current version of section 31.03(e)(4)(D), because the amendment does not affect the outcome of this appeal. 1 After the punishment hearing, the jury rendered a verdict and sentenced Starnes to

two years confinement and a fine of $488.88. Starnes timely filed a notice of

appeal.

Starnes’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.

[Panel Op.] 1978). We granted an extension of time for Starnes to file a pro se

brief, but we received no response from him.

We have independently examined the entire appellate record in this matter,

and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. We have determined that

this appeal is wholly frivolous. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2

AFFIRMED.

______________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice

2 Starnes may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 Submitted on November 30, 2016 Opinion Delivered February 15, 2017 Do not publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael Wayne Starnes v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-wayne-starnes-v-state-tex-2017.