Morris Mitchell v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)
• Decided: March 31, 2026
• Docket: 06-25-00126-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-25-00126-CR

MORRIS MITCHELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 202nd District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 23F1030-202

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION

Morris Dale Mitchell pled guilty to family violence assault, with a previous conviction

for assault family violence, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b). The

trial court sentenced Mitchell to ten years’ imprisonment with a $500.00 fine, but, pursuant to

Mitchell’s plea bargain with the State, it suspended the sentence in favor of placing him on

community supervision for five years. Later, the State alleged that Mitchell committed other

crimes while on community supervision and moved to revoke it. After the trial court found the

State’s allegations true, the trial court revoked Mitchell’s community supervision and imposed

its originally assessed sentence. Mitchell appeals.

Mitchell’s attorney has filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no

genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural

history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court

proceedings. Since counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating

why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of

Anders v. California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,

509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this

appeal.

On January 20, 2026, counsel mailed to Mitchell copies of the brief, the motion to

withdraw, and a motion for pro se access to the appellate record lacking only Mitchell’s

2 signature. Mitchell was informed of his rights to review the record and file a pro se response.

On January 20, we informed Mitchell that his pro se motion for access to the appellate record

was due on or before February 4. By letter dated February 18, this Court informed Mitchell that

the case would be set for submission on March 11. We received neither a pro se response from

Mitchell nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently

reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue

supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In

the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial

court’s judgment. Id.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1

Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice

Date Submitted: March 11, 2026 Date Decided: March 31, 2026

Do Not Publish

1 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 3