Monte Dawn McGowan v. The State of Texas Appeal from 42nd District Court of Taylor County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed September 14, 2023 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________ No. 11-22-00246-CR ___________ MONTE DAWN MCGOWAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 42nd District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 29506-A MEMORANDUM OPINION Monte Dawn McGowan, Appellant, waived his right to a jury trial and entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of possession of methamphetamine, a thirddegree felony, enhanced with a prior felony conviction. See TEX. PENAL CODE. ANN. § 12.42(a) (West 2019); TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (c) (West Supp. 2022). Appellant pled “true” to the State’s enhancement allegation. Appellant testified at sentencing. The trial court found Appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for fifteen years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant has not filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 1 Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. W. STACY TROTTER JUSTICE September 14, 2023 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
