Narrative Opinion Summary
Appellant Claude Marion Mitchell Jr. appealed from a conviction in the County Court at Law No. 3 of Bell County. The court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, concluding that the appeal was frivolous and without merit, providing a professional evaluation of the record that identified no arguable grounds for appeal. Appellant received a copy of this brief and was informed of his right to review the appellate record and submit a pro se brief, which he did not do. Upon reviewing the record and the attorney's brief, the court agreed that the appeal lacked merit and found no support for it in the record. Counsel's motion to withdraw was granted, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed. The decision was rendered by Justice Diane M. Henson and filed on October 28, 2009.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Lower Court's Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: After reviewing the record and the attorney's brief, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction, agreeing with the counsel's assessment that the appeal lacked merit.
Reasoning: Upon reviewing the record and the attorney's brief, the court agreed that the appeal lacked merit and found no support for it in the record.
Anders Brief Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, indicating that after a thorough review, the appeal was deemed frivolous, and no arguable grounds for appeal were identified.
Reasoning: The court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, concluding that the appeal was frivolous and without merit, providing a professional evaluation of the record that identified no arguable grounds for appeal.
Counsel's Motion to Withdrawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court granted the counsel's motion to withdraw after determining that the appeal was frivolous.
Reasoning: Counsel's motion to withdraw was granted, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed.
Right to Submit Pro Se Briefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant was informed of his right to review the appellate record and submit a pro se brief, but he did not exercise this right.
Reasoning: Appellant received a copy of this brief and was informed of his right to review the appellate record and submit a pro se brief, which he did not do.