Montrail Thomas Butler v. The State of Texas Appeal from 187th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-20-00264-CR Montrail Thomas BUTLER, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017CR6323 Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Irene Rios, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 1, 2021 AFFIRMED A jury convicted appellant, Montrail Thomas Butler, of one count of murder and one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced Butler to forty years’ confinement on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently. The court-appointed appellate attorney for Butler filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which she concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief demonstrates a professional and thorough evaluation of the record and meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967) and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 04-20-00264-CR Counsel sent copies of the brief and motion to withdraw to Butler and informed him of his rights in compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court provided a copy of the appellate record to Butler and notified him of the deadline to file a pro se brief. Butler did not file a pro se brief. See also Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.) (per curiam); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We find no arguable grounds for appeal exist and have decided the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by appointed counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Butler 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 id. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Do not publish -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.
