Paul Allen Schumacher v. State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 10, 2001
Docket06-00-00195-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Paul Allen Schumacher v. State of Texas (Paul Allen Schumacher v. State of Texas) 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
Paul Allen Schumacher v. State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion



In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana



______________________________



No. 06-00-00195-CR



PAUL ALLEN SCHUMACHER, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee





On Appeal from the 336th Judicial District Court

Fannin County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19672





Before Cornelius, C.J., Grant and Ross, JJ.

Opinion by Justice Grant



O P I N I O N



Paul Allen Schumacher appeals from his conviction on his guilty plea for the offense of burglary of a habitation. No plea bargaining agreement was in place. In the same proceeding, he also pleaded guilty to three other charges of burglary of a habitation and to one charge of escape. The jury assessed punishment at fifty years' imprisonment.

Michael Skotnik was appointed as counsel on appeal and filed a brief on April 5, 2001, under the mandate of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Ex parte Senna, 606 S.W.2d 329, 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), and has accordingly also filed a motion to withdraw. Counsel sent the appellant a copy of his brief and advised him by letter that he believes that there are no arguable contentions of error and informed Schumacher of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief.

Schumacher filed a pro se brief on July 16, 2001, and then filed a supplement to that brief on August 15, 2001. His briefs raise the same issues in each appeal.

We have reviewed both briefs and all of the arguments raised therein in our opinion issued this date in Paul Allen Schumacher v. State, cause number 06-00-00192-CR.



For the reasons stated in that opinion, we affirm the judgment.



Ben Z. Grant

Justice



Date Submitted: December 7, 2001

Date Decided: December 10, 2001



Do Not Publish

iss, III

Chief Justice



Date Submitted: September 9, 2008

Date Decided: September 10, 2008

1. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 3g (Vernon Supp. 2008).

2. To the extent Harrison's petition could be interpreted as requesting a writ of mandamus be issued against the parole board, we lack jurisdiction to issue such relief. This Court has no mandamus jurisdiction over the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004).

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)
Ex Parte Senna
606 S.W.2d 329 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Paul Allen Schumacher v. State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-allen-schumacher-v-state-of-texas-texapp-2001.