Christopher William Mann v. State

ACCEPTED
06-15-00163-CR
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
11/6/2015 11:49:46 AM
DEBBIE AUTREY
CLERK
No. 06-15-00163-CR
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM MANN § IN THE SIXTH
FILED IN
6th COURT OF APPEALS
§ TEXARKANA, TEXAS
v. § COURT OF APPEALS
11/6/2015 11:49:46 AM
§ DEBBIE AUTREY
THE STATE OF TEXAS § TEXARKANA, ClerkTEXAS
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
COMES NOW E. Alan Bennett, appointed counsel for Appellant Christopher
William Mann, in the above-styled and numbered cause, and makes and files this
Motion to Withdraw, and in support thereof shows the Court as follows:
I.
After a careful review of the record, counsel has determined that this appeal
presents no issues of arguable merit. Accordingly, counsel has filed an Anders brief.
Once this Honorable Court has determined whether the appeal is frivolous, then the
Court must permit counsel to withdraw, regardless of whether it agrees with
counsel’s conclusion concerning the merits of the appeal. See Meza v. State, 206
S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Fransaw v. State, No. 03-11-730-CR,
2012 WL 6698951, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 28, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (frivolous appeal); Wright v. State, No. 03-10-00367-
CR, 2011 WL 2437657, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin June 15, 2011, no pet.) (per
curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (appeal not frivolous).
II.
The Court must give Appellant the opportunity to file a pro se brief or
response. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed.
2d 493 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
III.
After Appellant has filed his pro se brief or response and the State has filed
any responsive brief or after the time for filing such pleading or pleadings has lapsed,
then the Court should consider any issues raised by Appellant, conduct an
independent review of the record, and determine whether the appeal is frivolous.
Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 694 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.).
If the Court finds the appeal to be frivolous, then it should grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment. See Mesa, 206 S.W.3d at 689;
Fransaw, 2012 WL 6698951, at *1. Conversely, if the Court finds some issue of
arguable merit, then the Court should grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and abate
the appeal for the appointment of new counsel. See Mesa, 206 S.W.3d at 689;
Wright, 2011 WL 2437657, at *1.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the undersigned counsel
requests that this Honorable Court grant this motion to withdraw and grant such
other and further relief to which counsel may show himself justly entitled.
Motion to Withdraw Page 2
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Alan Bennett
E. Alan Bennett
Attorney for Appellant
SBOT #02140700
Sheehy, Lovelace & Mayfield, P.C.
510 N. Valley Mills Dr., Ste. 500
Waco, TX 76710
Telephone: (254) 772-8022
Fax: (254) 772-9297
Email: abennett@slmpc.com
Certificate of Service
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of this pleading
was served on November 6, 2015: (1) by mail to Christopher William Mann, TDCJ
#02023857, Joe F. Gurney Unit, 1385 FM 3328, Tennessee Colony, TX 75803; and
(2) by email to counsel for the State, Bob Odom, bob.odom@co.bell.tx.us.
/s/ Alan Bennett
E. Alan Bennett
Motion to Withdraw Page 3