Albert Charles Kucinski v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 181st District Court of Randall County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-06-0235-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL C MARCH 15, 2007 ______________________________ ALBERT CHARLES KUCINSKI, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _________________________________ FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY; NO. 17249-B; HON. JOHN B. BOARD, PRESIDING _______________________________ Memorandum Opinion _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Albert Charles Kucinski appeals his conviction, after a jury trial, for manslaughter with a deadly weapon, i.e. a motor vehicle. Appellant s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief in which she has stated that, after diligently searching the record, she concluded that the appeal was without merit. Included with her brief, is a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel s belief that there was 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S .Ct.13 96, 18 L.E d.2d 493 (196 7). no reversible error and of appellant s right to file a response or brief pro se. By letter dated December 19, 2006, we also notified appellant of his right to tender his own brief or response and set January 18, 2007, as the deadline to do so. Appellant filed two motions to extend the response deadline which were granted and resulted in an extension to March 8, 2007. To date, appellant has filed neither a response, brief nor another request for extension. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed four potential areas for appeal all having to do with claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. However, counsel then satisfactorily explained why each argument lacked merit. We have also conducted our own review of the record, see Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), and failed to uncover any reversible error. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed. Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2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.
