Shane Michael Morgan v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 9, 2024
Docket03-23-00803-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Shane Michael Morgan v. the State of Texas (Shane Michael Morgan v. the 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
Shane Michael Morgan v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00803-CR

Shane Michael Morgan, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY NO. CR2017-427D, THE HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE PRESIDING

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

In a three-count indictment, the State charged appellant Shane Michael Morgan

with the offenses of evading arrest with a motor vehicle (count I), tampering with physical

evidence (count II), and possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine (count III). The

jury convicted Morgan of counts I and III and acquitted him of count II. The jury also made an

affirmative finding that Morgan used the motor vehicle as a deadly weapon during the

commission of the evading-arrest offense. Punishment was before the district court. At the

hearing on punishment, Morgan pleaded true to three enhancement paragraphs alleging prior

felony convictions for the offense of engaging in organized crime, specifically burglary of a

building and burglary of a habitation, committed on three separate dates in 2007. At the

conclusion of the hearing, the district court sentenced Morgan to twenty years’ imprisonment.

This appeal followed. Morgan’s court-appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw and a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Upon receiving an Anders

brief, we must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is

wholly frivolous. See Penson, 488 U.S. at 80; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). During our

review of the record, we have determined that the written judgment of conviction reflects only a

conviction for count I, the offense of evading arrest with a motor vehicle. The written judgment

does not reflect a conviction for count III, the offense of possession of a controlled substance.

We have contacted the district clerk’s office, and they have confirmed that no written judgment

of conviction for count III exists.

The appropriate remedy under these circumstances is to abate the appeal and

remand the cause to the district court for entry of either a judgment nunc pro tunc reflecting each

count of which the jury convicted Morgan, or a separate judgment memorializing the jury’s

conviction of Morgan for the offense of possession of a controlled substance, count III in the

indictment. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.01, § 1(13); Morales v. State, 974 S.W.2d 191,

192 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (explaining that multiple convictions arising from

single proceeding may be memorialized in either single or multiple judgments); see also Tex. R.

App. P. 44.4(a) (providing that appellate court must not affirm or reverse judgment or dismiss

appeal if “trial court’s erroneous action . . . prevents the proper presentation of a case to the court

of appeals; and the trial court can correct its action”), (b) (providing that “[i]f the circumstances

described in [Rule 44.4](a) exist, the court of appeals must direct the trial court to correct the

error” and “will then proceed as if the erroneous action . . . had not occurred”).

2 A supplemental clerk’s record containing either the judgment nunc pro tunc or

separate judgment reflecting the conviction for count III shall be filed in this Court no later than

September 23, 2024. Additionally, consistent with this Court’s June 27, 2024 order granting

appellant’s motion for pro se access to the record, we further instruct the clerk of the district

court to provide a copy of the supplemental record to appellant, and to provide written

verification to this Court of the date and manner in which the supplemental record was provided,

no later than September 23, 2024.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly

Abated and Remanded

Filed: September 9, 2024

Do Not Publish

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)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Morales v. State
974 S.W.2d 191 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Shane Michael Morgan v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shane-michael-morgan-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.