Michael O'Neal Sutton v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 1A District Court of Newton County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-09-00030-CR
____________________
MICHAEL O’NEAL SUTTON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
______________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 1-A District Court
Newton County, Texas
Trial Cause No. ND 5852
_______________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Michael O’Neal Sutton guilty of attempted aggravated assault on a
public servant. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 15.01 (Vernon 2003); see also TEX. PEN.
CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2), (b)(2)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2009). The jury made an affirmative
finding that Sutton used a deadly weapon. In punishment, the jury found Sutton to be an
habitual offender and assessed a sentence of sixty years.
On appeal, Sutton’s counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional
evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807
1
(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On June 17, 2010, we granted an extension of time for the
appellant to file a pro se brief. Sutton has not filed a response.
We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no
arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment
of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005); cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on September 17, 2010
Opinion Delivered October 6, 2010
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
1
Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.
2
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.
