Court Opinion

ID: 3131270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 17:03:56.166818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:09.911650
License: Public Domain

i          i      i                                                                    i       i      i

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                           No. 04-09-00353-CR

                                    Michael Christopher TERRELL,
                                              Appellant

                                                     v.

                                          The STATE of Texas,
                                                Appellee

                      From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 2005-CR-8409
                          Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting:          Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
                  Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
                  Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 6, 2010

AFFIRMED

           Following his adjudication of guilt and the revocation of his community supervision, the trial

court sentenced defendant Michael Christopher Terrell to eight years’ confinement and a $1,200 fine.

           Defendant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional

evaluation of the record and demonstrating there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel

concludes the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Defendant was informed of his right to review the record. Counsel provided
                                                                                                           04-09-00353-CR

defendant with a copy of the brief and advised him of his right to file a pro se brief. Defendant filed

did not file a pro se brief.

         After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without

merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, and we GRANT appellate counsel’s

motion to withdraw.1 Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.);

Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

                                                                   Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

         1
           … No substitute counsel will be appointed. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d 403, 408 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008). Should defendant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, defendant
must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review.
Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely
motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must
be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of
the filings in this case. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the
requirements of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 68.4.

                                                            -2-