Michael White v. The State of Texas Appeal from 213th District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-17-00305-CR No. 02-17-00306-CR No. 02-17-00307-CR ___________________________ MICHAEL WHITE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS On Appeal from the 213th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 1464400D, 1470552D, 1470991D Before Meier, Gabriel, and Kerr, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr MEMORANDUM OPINION Without entering into plea bargains, Michael White pleaded guilty to three aggravated robberies with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). After hearing evidence, the trial court found White guilty, sentenced him to eight years in prison for each offense, and ordered all three sentences to run concurrently. White appealed. White’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (analyzing the effect of Anders). Although White was given an opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders brief, he has not done so. In a letter, the State agreed with White’s counsel that the appeals are frivolous. After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeals are frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court must independently examine the record to see if any arguable ground may be raised on his behalf. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We also consider the briefs and any pro se response. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. Only after we conduct our own examination to determine whether counsel has 2 correctly assessed the case may we grant his motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief, the State’s letter, and the record. We agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in the record that arguably might support the appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments. See Isaacs v. State, No. 02-18-00034-CR, 2018 WL 4781575, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 4, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Lewis v. State, No. 02-16-00388-CR, 2018 WL 1956230, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 26, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). /s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: December 20, 2018 3
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.
