Michael Wayne Jackson v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed July 18, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00037-CR
__________

MICHAEL WAYNE JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 23772-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Michael Wayne Jackson, entered open pleas of guilty to evading
arrest or detention with a vehicle and harassment of a public servant, third-degree
felonies. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.11(b) (West 2019), 38.04(b)(2)(A)
(West 2016). The trial court found Appellant guilty, and ordered a presentence
investigation report (PSI) to be prepared prior to sentencing. At the sentencing
hearing, the State relied solely on the PSI as punishment evidence, then Appellant
and his sister testified. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court assessed
Appellant’s punishment for each conviction at imprisonment for ten years in the
Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The
trial court further ordered the sentences to run concurrently. See TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 42.08(a) (West Supp. 2023).
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, a form motion for
pro se access to the appellate record, and the mailing address of this court should he
desire to file the motion for pro se access. Counsel also advised Appellant of his
right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief, and of his right to
file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. As such, court-
appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant has not filed pro se responses to counsel’s Anders brief. Following
the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed
the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1

1
Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgments of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

July 18, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3