Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 1997

Michael Lee Keene v. State

Michael Lee Keene v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided July 23, 1997

Michael Lee Keene v. State

Opinion

Lusk v. State






IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS


No. 10-97-017-CR


     MICHAEL LEE KEENE,

                                                                                              Appellant

     v.


     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                                              Appellee


From the 87th District Court

Freestone County, Texas

Trial Court # 95-119-CR

                                                                                                                


MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                                                                                                


      Appellant Michael Lee Keene pleaded guilty to the offense of retaliation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 36.06(a)(1) (Vernon 1994). In exchange for this plea, the State recommended deferred adjudication community supervision. The court sentenced Keene in accordance with the State’s recommendations. The State later filed a motion to adjudicate Keene’s deferred adjudication status. At the hearing, Keene pleaded true to two of the three allegations in the motion. The court granted the State’s motion and sentenced Keene to seven years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

      The court granted Keene a new trial. At the second hearing, Keene reasserted his pleas of true. The court again granted the State’s motion and sentenced Keene to seven years in prison.

      Keene's appointed attorney filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw on April 8, 1997. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). On April 16, we granted the attorney's motion to withdraw, finding that the appeal was without merit. See Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. ref’d). Keene has not filed a pro-se brief or a request for an extension of time to file his brief. Id. at 647 & n.3. Thus, because we have no viable points of error to consider, the judgment is affirmed. Tex. R. App. P. 81(b)(2), 90(a).

                                                                                  PER CURIAM



Before Chief Justice Davis,

          Justice Cummings, and

          Justice Vance

Affirmed

Opinion issued and filed July 23, 1997

Do not publish

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.