Michelle Antionette Dickerson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 11, 2025
• Docket: 10-25-00074-CR
• Status: Published

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