in Re: Benjamin Wayne McCoin
Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-04-00137-CR
______________________________
IN RE: BENJAMIN WAYNE MCCOIN
On Appeal from the 102nd Judicial District Court
Red River County, Texas
Trial Court No. 76CR1099
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Benjamin Wayne McCoin has filed a document with this Court, which we initially deemed to be an attempt to appeal from a prior judicial decision. We denied a motion made in connection with that filing, and then struck the filing because of its use of no fewer than twenty-eight profane words and phrases, as well as a number of tirades and scurrilous statements directed against members of the judiciary, which are both contemptuous and highly inappropriate. McCoin has filed fifteen proceedings with this Court over the past four years, even though his appeal was addressed by an opinion from this Court in August 2001. He has also sent innumerable documents of various types to this Court, most of which are attempts to relitigate his original appeal or complaints about the outcome of that appeal.
Over thirty days have passed since we struck the document presented to this Court. McCoin has presented nothing to show this Court there is any new matter over which we could have jurisdiction.
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: November 1, 2004
Date Decided: November 2, 2004
Shading"/>
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-09-00236-CR
______________________________
SUE BETH JOHNSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 3rd Judicial District Court
Anderson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 28949
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Sue Beth Johnson appeals from the revocation of her community supervision for the underlying offense of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine).[1] Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(b) (Vernon 2010). She was represented by different appointed counsel at trial and on appeal.
JohnsonÂs attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the proceedings in detail. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Johnson on March 17, 2010, informing Johnson of her right to file a pro se response and of her right to review the record. Counsel has also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. Johnson has neither filed a pro se response, nor has she requested an extension of time in which to file such response.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the clerkÂs record and the reporterÂs record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826Â27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
In a frivolous appeal situation, we are to determine whether the appeal is without merit and is frivolous, and if so, the appeal must be dismissed or affirmed. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.[2]
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: July 27, 2010
Date Decided: July 28, 2010
Do Not Publish
[1]Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See Tex. GovÂt Code Ann. § 73.001 (Vernon 2005).
[2]Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counselÂs request to withdraw from further representation of Johnson in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Johnson wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Johnson must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Johnson must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.