Michael Myers v. State ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                     COURT OF APPEALS
    EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    EL PASO, TEXAS
    §
    MICHAEL MATTHEW MYERS,                                          No. 08-09-00280-CR
    §
    Appellant,                                       Appeal from the
    §
    V.                                                          143rd Judicial District Court
    §
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                            of Ward County, Texas
    §
    Appellee.                                   (TC# 07-08-4888-CRW)
    §
    §
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    In 2007, Appellant was placed on community supervision pursuant to a plea bargain for a
    burglary offense. The State filed a motion to adjudicate in April 2008, citing several violations
    of the terms of Appellant’s probation. In lieu of adjudication, Appellant entered into a second
    plea agreement which amended the terms of his community supervision to include up to twenty-
    four months of treatment and rehabilitation in the Midland Court Residential Treatment Center
    followed by ninety days of intensive supervision by the Midland County Community Supervision
    and Corrections Department, and participation in the “Aftercare Program” until discharged by his
    community supervision officer.
    The State filed its second motion to adjudicate guilt on February 20, 2009, stating that in
    addition to several other violations of his probation, Appellant had been arrested for resisting
    arrest and criminal trespass on or about Feburary 10. In accordance with the recommendation of
    Appellant’s community supervision officer, Appellant was again placed on community
    supervision, and agreed to serve up to twelve months in the Midland County Court Residential
    Treatment Center Relapse Program.
    This appeal arises from a third motion to adjudicate filed on August 28, 2009. The
    motion recited numerous violations of Appellant’s probation, including a criminal offense,
    possession of a prohibited weapon, i.e., switchblade/knuckles. Appellant plead “not true” to the
    allegations, and the State proceeded to present evidence of the violations. Following the State’s
    presentation, the trial court found Appellant had violated the terms of his community
    supervision, and adjudicated Appellant guilty of the original burglary offense as alleged in the
    indictment. Appellant was sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a $2,000
    fine.
    Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeal is
    frivolous and without merit. Appellate counsel states that he has studied the record and has
    found no error preserved for appeal that could serve as grounds for reversible error. The brief
    meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    , 
    18 L. Ed. 2d 493
    ,
    reh. denied, 
    388 U.S. 924
    , 
    87 S. Ct. 2094
    , 
    18 L. Ed. 2d 1377
    (1967), by presenting a professional
    evaluation of the record, and demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be
    advanced. See High v. State, 
    573 S.W.2d 807
    (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). A copy of counsel’s brief
    has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of her right to examine the
    appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. In addition, this Court has
    carefully reviewed the entire record and agrees that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without
    merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that may arguably support the appeal.
    Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    -2-
    October 20, 2010
    DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice
    Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
    (Do Not Publish)
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-09-00280-CR

Filed Date: 10/20/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015