eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2020-02

Michael Hall v. State ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                                Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-19-00091-CR
Michael HALL,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 15, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 562194
Honorable Melissa Vara, Judge Presiding
Opinion by:       Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Sitting:          Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 5, 2020
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
Michael Hall was convicted by a jury of the Class A misdemeanor offense of assault-bodily
injury. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(1). The trial court sentenced Hall to serve one year
in the Bexar County jail but suspended the sentence and placed Hall on community supervision
for two years. Hall appealed.
Hall’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation
of the record in accordance with Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. 738 
    (1967), and a motion to
withdraw. In the brief, counsel raises no arguable appellate issues, and concludes this appeal is
04-19-00091-CR
frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the Anders requirements. See id.; see also High v.
State,
    573 S.W.2d 807 
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Gainous v. State,
    436 S.W.2d 137 
    (Tex. Crim.
App. 1969). As required, counsel provided Hall with a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw
and informed him of the right to receive a copy of the appellate record and to file his own pro se
brief. See Kelly v. State,
    436 S.W.3d 313
    , 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Nichols v. State,
    954 S.W.2d 83
    , 85-86 (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.). Hall did not file a pro se brief. After reviewing
the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there is no reversible error and agree with
counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826-27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and appellate counsel’s motion to
withdraw is granted. 1
    Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86
    ;
    Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177
    .
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
1
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Hall wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or must 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2.
Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any
petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
-2-