Michelle Antionette Dickerson v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Court of Appeals

Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00074-CR

Michelle Antionette Dickerson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

On appeal from the

54th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge Susan N. Kelly, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2022-1185-C2

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Appellant, Michelle Antoinette Dickerson, guilty of two counts of the felony offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The jury assessed her punishment respectively at seventeen years and seven years confinement in a penitentiary. The trial court sentenced Dickerson accordingly and ordered the two counts to run concurrently. This appeal ensued. We will affirm.

Dickerson’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Michelle Antionette Dickerson v. The State of Texas Page 2

Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Dickerson is granted.

MATT JOHNSON

Chief Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: December 11, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do Not Publish CR25

Michelle Antionette Dickerson v. The State of Texas Page 3