Susan Meador v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 220th District Court of Bosque County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-09-00100-CR SUSAN MEADOR, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 220th District Court Bosque County, Texas Trial Court No. 14,273 MEMORANDUM OPINION After Susan Meador entered an open guilty plea to the state-jail felony offense of theft by check of $1,500 or more but less than $20,000, a jury assessed a two-year statejail term and a $7,500 fine. Meador appealed. Meador s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief, asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous.1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although informed of her right to do so, Meador did not file a pro se brief or response. The State waived the filing of a brief. We will affirm. In an Anders case, we must, after a full examination of all the proceedings, [] decide whether the case is wholly frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is wholly frivolous or without merit when it lacks any basis in law or fact. McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find this appeal to be wholly frivolous, we affirm the judgment. Counsel must send Meador a copy of our decision by certified mail, return receipt requested, at Meador s last known address. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. Counsel must also notify Meador of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Id.; see also Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673-74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We grant counsel s motion to withdraw, effective upon counsel s compliance with this notification requirement as evidenced by a letter [to this Court] certifying his compliance. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. Meador s counsel does identify that the indictment contains a clerical error: it omits the last digit of the year for the grand jury s July term, reading 200. Counsel notes that no law exists that would afford Meador any relief based on this error. Moreover, Meador s open guilty plea waived all nonjurisdictional defects. See Stahle v. State, 970 S.W.2d 682, 694 (Tex. App. Dallas 1998, pet. ref d) ( The law in this State is well settled that a guilty plea entered without benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects occurring prior to entry of the plea. ); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.14(b) (Vernon 2005). 1 Meador v. State Page 2 REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins (Chief Justice Gray concurs in the judgment. A separate opinion will not issue.) Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed April 13, 2011 Do not publish [CR25] Meador v. State Page 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.
