Melany M. Brown v. The State of Texas Appeal from 371st 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. 02-18-00144-CR ___________________________ MELANY M. BROWN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS On Appeal from the 371st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1505325D Before Pittman, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Melany M. Brown appeals her conviction and her two-year sentence for possessing less than a gram of methamphetamine.1 We affirm. Without entering into a plea bargain, Brown pleaded guilty to possessing less than a gram of methamphetamine and pleaded true to a sentence-enhancement allegation. The trial court accepted her pleas and ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report. After the completion of the presentence investigation, the trial court held a hearing on Brown’s punishment. The court admitted the presentence investigation report, heard testimony from Brown and her father, found Brown guilty, and sentenced her to two years’ confinement. She brought this appeal. Brown’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief under Anders v. California, representing that a “comprehensive review of the record does not disclose any arguable grounds to advance [on] appeal.” 386 U.S. 738, 744– 45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (analyzing the effect of Anders). In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel notified Brown of the motion to withdraw, See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102(6), .115(b). 1 2 provided her a copy of the Anders brief, informed her of her right to file a pro se response, informed her of her right to seek discretionary review should this court hold that the appeal is frivolous, and took measures to facilitate her review of the appellate record. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Brown did not file a pro se response to counsel’s brief, and the State did not file a brief. Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we must independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. 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 judgment. /s/ Wade Birdwell Wade Birdwell Justice Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: February 7, 2019 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.
