Michael Lee Martin v. the State of Texas

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00075-CR

Michael Lee Martin, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 20TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY NO. CR27,645, THE HONORABLE JOHN YOUNGBLOOD, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael Lee Martin pleaded guilty to the offense of indecency with a child by contact. See Tex. Penal Code § 21.11. The trial court sentenced Martin to nineteen years’ imprisonment and rendered its judgment of conviction accordingly. See id. § 12.33. Martin appealed his conviction.

Martin’s court-appointed attorney on appeal 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). Martin’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 id.; 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”).

Martin’s counsel represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to Martin; advised Martin of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided Martin with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Martin did not file a pro se brief and did not request an extension of time to do so.

We have independently reviewed the record and considered Martin’s appellate brief filed by counsel, and we 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. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

__________________________________________ Karin Crump, Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Crump and Ellis Affirmed Filed: September 12, 2025 Do Not Publish