Michael Shemond White v. The State of Texas Appeal from 145th District Court of Nacogdoches County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-13-00281-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS MICHAEL SHEMOND WHITE, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 145TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Michael Shemond White appeals his convictions for three counts of aggravated robbery and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm. After a jury trial, the trial court sentenced him to seventy-five years of imprisonment. Appellant s counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief. We affirm. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that Appellant s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised an issue concerning his mental competence. We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). CONCLUSION As required, Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant s counsel s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court s judgment is affirmed. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408-09. Counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant 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 on his behalf or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or the date the last timely filed motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered August 13, 2014. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 2 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT AUGUST 13, 2014 NO. 12-13-00281-CR MICHAEL SHEMOND WHITE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 145th District Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1319945) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of the court that there was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that the decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J. and Hoyle, J.
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.
