Michael Denton v. State ( 2010 )

NO. 07-10-00189-CR, 07-10-00190-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 28, 2010

MICHAEL DON DENTON, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

 FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

NO. 18,607-B, 18,608-B; HONORABLE JOHN B. BOARD, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By order of October 8, 2010, we abated and remanded these cases for proceedings in the trial court according to the direction of our order.  On October 27, 2010, appellant Michael Denton filed a motion to dismiss both appeals.  Appellant and his attorney signed the motion.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).

We first dissolve the abatement and reinstate both cases.  No decision of this court on the merits of either case having been delivered to date, we grant the motion of appellant to dismiss both cases. Accordingly, both appeals are dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

                                                                                                James T. Campbell

                                                                                                            Justice

Do not publish. 

200%'>Appellant=s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Id. at 744-45.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court=s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response.

By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.  We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court=s judgment is affirmed.[2]

                                                                                                Mackey K. Hancock

                                                                                                            Justice

Do not publish. 

---

[1] See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21(b) (West Supp. 2010).

[2] Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.  See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4.