Noah Manuere v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 19, 2015
Docket10-14-00123-CR
StatusPublished

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

Bluebook
Noah Manuere v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00123-CR

NOAH MANUERE, Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the County Court at Law Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. C-34902-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Noah Manuere was found guilty of the offense of continuous sexual

abuse of a child and received a life sentence. Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel

has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief, 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). Although

informed of his right to do so, Appellant did not file a pro se response to the Anders

brief. In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, []

decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; 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, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988).

We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find

this appeal to be wholly frivolous, we affirm the judgment. We grant appointed

counsel’s amended motion to withdraw from representation of Appellant.

Notwithstanding this grant, appointed counsel must send Appellant a copy of our

decision, notify him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and

send this Court a letter certifying counsel’s compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673-74 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2006).

REX D. DAVIS Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins (Chief Justice Gray concurs with a note)* Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed January 15, 2015 Do not publish [CRPM]

Manuere v. State Page 2 *(Chief Justice Gray concurs in the judgment to the extent it affirms the trial court’s judgment. A separate opinion will not issue.)

Manuere v. State Page 3

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)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1
486 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Ex Parte Owens
206 S.W.3d 670 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Noah Manuere v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noah-manuere-v-state-texapp-2015.