Court Opinion

ID: 9955322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 09:15:48.301629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:31.112354
License: Public Domain

In The
                              Court of Appeals
                     Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                    No. 07-23-00192-CR

                              MIKO BUTLER, APPELLANT

                                            V.

                          THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                         On Appeal from the 364th District Court
                                Lubbock County, Texas
       Trial Court No. DC-2023-CR-0573, Honorable William R. Eichman II, Presiding

                                     March 21, 2024
                             MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       Appellant Miko Butler appeals the trial court’s judgments by which he was

convicted of two counts of aggravated assault of a public servant. Though all parties

were prepared for a jury trial, appellant decided shortly before trial to enter an open plea

of guilty to both counts and to let the trial court decide punishment. After a lengthy trial

on punishment, the trial court sentenced appellant to seventy years imprisonment on each

count to run concurrently.     Appellant timely appealed.     Appellant’s court-appointed
appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief. 1 We grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

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

conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, it reflected no arguable basis

for reversing appellant’s convictions. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744–45; In re Schulman,

252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).                  Counsel explained why, under the

controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. He further demonstrated that

he complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by 1) providing a copy

of the brief, motion to withdraw, and appellate record to appellant, 2) notifying appellant

of his right to file a pro se response, and 3) informing appellant of his right to file a pro se

petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. By letter dated

December 5, 2023, this Court granted appellant an opportunity to exercise his right to file

a response to counsel’s motion and brief by January 4, 2024, a date later extended to

February 5, 2024. To date, appellant has not filed a response or otherwise communicated

a desire to do so.

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

                                                   2
        We independently examined the record to determine whether there were any non-

frivolous issues supporting reversal as required by In re Schulman. We found none. So,

after thoroughly reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we 1) agree that there is no

plausible basis for reversal of appellant’s convictions, 2) affirm the trial court’s judgments,

and 3) grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 2

                                                                    Brian Quinn
                                                                    Chief Justice

Do not publish.

        2 Within five days after the date of this opinion, appellate counsel shall 1) send appellant a copy of

the opinion and judgment and 2) inform appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review
with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is only informational and
ministerial. It does not encompass or require the rendition of legal advice or further representation.

                                                       3