Opinion
03-22-00698-CR
05-09-2024
Michael Tucker, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
Do Not Publish
FROM THE 390TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-DC-21-302471, THE HONORABLE JULIE H. KOCUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING
Before Justices Baker, Kelly, and Smith
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Chari L. Kelly, Justice
Michael Tucker was convicted of the offense of indecency with a child by sexual contact, a second-degree felony, and the trial court assessed her punishment at fifteen years' confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 12.33, 21.11(a)(1), (d).
Tucker's appellate brief states, "Appellant, Michael Tucker, is transgendered and thus will be referred to by feminine pronouns." During the proceedings in the trial court, Tucker referred to herself as Jacqueline Michelle Tucker. Consequently, in this opinion, we refer to Tucker using her chosen pronouns.
In a separate cause number in the trial court, Tucker was convicted of the same offense, indecency with a child by sexual contact, against another victim, as well as aggravated sexual assault. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.021. Tucker separately filed a notice of appeal from that judgment of conviction, and the appeal was assigned cause number 03-22-00697-CR by the Clerk of this Court. Upon considering the merits of the appeal, the judgment of conviction in that cause was affirmed by this Court. See Tucker v. State, S.W.3d., at * (Tex. App.- Austin 2024, no pet. h.) (en banc).
Tucker's court-appointed attorney on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief contending that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Tucker's court-appointed attorney's brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. at 744-45; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988) (explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose of "assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous").
Tucker's counsel has represented to the Court that she provided copies of the motion and brief to Tucker; advised Tucker of her right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se response, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided to Tucker a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Tucker has not filed a motion for access to the record or filed a pro se brief, and the deadline for filing a brief has now passed. The State has declined to file a brief in this case.
We have independently reviewed the record and have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court's order.
Affirmed.