Court Opinion

ID: 9931021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 09:14:52.546562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:26.439828
License: Public Domain

In The
                               Court of Appeals
                      Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                      No. 07-23-00129-CR

                       MICHAEL BLAIN COCHRAN, APPELLANT

                                              V.

                            THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                            On Appeal from the 47th District Court
                                    Randall County, Texas
                  Trial Court No. 31624A, Honorable Dee Johnson, Presiding

                                       January 31, 2024
                              MEMORANDUM OPINION
                     Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       Appellant, Michael Blain Cochran, appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery,1

enhanced by a prior felony conviction.       Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense and

pleaded true to the enhancement allegation. The trial court accepted his guilty plea, found

the enhancement allegation to be true, and assessed punishment at forty years’

       1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03.
imprisonment. Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed an Anders2 brief in

support of a motion to withdraw. We affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.

       In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has conducted

a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no

reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v.

State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed

why, under the controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter

to Appellant, counsel notified him of his motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of

the motion, Anders brief, and appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro

se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

(specifying appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported

by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro

se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant filed a pro se response and a “Motion

to Retain Counsel on Appeal,” asserting that arguable issues exist and requesting that

counsel advance those arguments on appeal. We have carried Appellant’s motion with

the case. The State has not filed a brief.

       By his Anders brief, counsel evaluates the proceedings and maintains there are

no errors on which relief may be granted. We have independently examined the record

to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were preserved in the trial

       2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

                                                   2
court which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct.

346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436

S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Following our review of the appellate record,

counsel’s brief, and Appellant’s pro se response, we conclude there are no grounds for

appellate review that would result in reversal of Appellant’s conviction or sentence.

        Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw,3

and deny Appellant’s pro se Motion to Retain Counsel on Appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

43.2(a).

                                                                   Judy C. Parker
                                                                      Justice

Do not publish.

        3 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the

opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is
ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted
counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.

                                                      3