Michael Lynn Skaggs v. State ( 2009 )

NO. 07-08-0270-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
JANUARY 8, 2009
______________________________
MICHAEL LYNN SKAGGS,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 121ST DISTRICT COURT OF TERRY COUNTY;
NO. 5700; HON. KELLY G. MOORE, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
After a guilty plea, appellant Michael Lynn Skaggs was convicted of burglary of a
habitation and, pursuant to a plea bargain, he was sentenced to ten years confinement,
which was probated for ten years. Less than a year later, the State filed a motion to revoke
appellant’s probation. After a hearing, the trial court did so and sentenced appellant to ten
years imprisonment. Appellant appeals from that probation revocation and judgment.
Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an
Anders1 brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has
concluded that the appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, he has filed a copy of a
letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error
and of appellant’s right to file a response pro se. By letter dated December 2, 2008, this
court also informed appellant of his right to file a response by January 2, 2009, if he wished
to do so. To date, we have received neither a response nor a request for an extension of
time to file it.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel has
discussed whether the evidence presented at the revocation hearing was sufficient to
support the trial court’s finding that appellant had violated the terms of his probation.
Counsel also discussed certain evidentiary rulings made at the revocation hearing.
However, he concluded that the record revealed no reversible error. Thereafter, we
conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s
conclusion and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have reached the same conclusion as counsel.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.2
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2
Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion
and judgm ent, along with notification of appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See
T EX . R. A PP . P. 48.4.
2