Michael Wayne Jackson v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed July 18, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00042-CR
__________

MICHAEL WAYNE JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 29882-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Michael Wayne Jackson, entered an open plea of guilty to
unlawful possession of a firearm, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 46.04(a), (e) (West Supp. 2023). 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 at imprisonment for six years in the
Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The
trial court further ordered the sentences to run concurrently with Appellant’s
convictions under trial court cause no. 23772-B for evading arrest with a vehicle and
harassment of a public servant. 1 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 a pro se response 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. 2

1
We address Appellant’s appeal of those convictions under cause no. 11-24-00037-CR.
2
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
judgment 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