TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-02-00359-CR
NO. 03-02-00360-CR
NO. 03-02-00361-CR
Michael Derril Stratton
a/k/a Michael Derrill Stratton
a/k/a Michael Derrell Stratton, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOS. 52,698, 52,699 & 52,700, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before a jury, appellant Michael Derril Stratton pleaded guilty to indictments accusing him
of aggravated sexual assault, aggravated robbery, and aggravated kidnapping. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ''
20.04, 22.021 (West Supp. 2003), ' 29.03 (West 1994). The jury returned instructed verdicts of guilty
and assessed prison terms of fifty, thirty, and fifteen years. The jury also imposed a $10,000 fine for each
offense.
On October 16, 2002, appellant=s court-appointed attorney filed briefs concluding that the
appeals are frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969). Copies of counsel=s briefs were delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his
right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.
On November 15, 2002, the parties, including appellant, were notified that these causes
would be submitted for decision on December 23. On November 27, appellant filed his first pro se motion
for extension of time to file his pro se brief, asking for an additional thirty days. The motion was granted and
the time for filing the pro se brief was extended to January 10, 2003. On January 7, appellant filed a
second pro se motion for extension of time, requesting an additional ninety days in which to file his pro se
brief. This motion was granted in part; the time for filing was extended to March 15, 2003. On March 20,
the Court received appellant=s third pro se motion for extension of time in which he asked for at least thirty
more days to file his pro se brief. On March 28, the third motion was granted and the Court ordered
appellant to tender his brief for filing no later than April 15, 2003. The order contained a warning that no
further extension of time would be granted. On April 7, the Court received a letter from appellant stating
that he would comply with the March 28 order. On April 22, however, appellant filed his fourth motion for
extension of time seeking an additional ninety days in which to prepare and file his pro se brief. That motion
was granted in part and appellant was ordered to file his pro se brief no later than May 15, 2003. To date,
appellant has neither tendered a pro se brief for filing nor requested additional time.
The Court is aware of the difficulties confronting non-lawyer inmates attempting to do legal
research and writing while in prison. For this reason, the Court attempts to give appellants whose lawyers
2
have filed frivolous appeal briefs a generous amount of time in which to prepare and file their own pro se
briefs. We cannot, however, give such appellants an unlimited amount of time. Appellant has had seven
months to prepare his pro se brief or to otherwise respond to his appointed attorney=s frivolous appeal brief.
This is, we believe, a reasonable amount of time.
We have reviewed the records and counsel=s briefs and agree that the appeals are frivolous
and without merit. We find nothing in the records that might arguably support the appeals. Counsel=s
motions to withdraw are granted.
The judgments of conviction are affirmed.
__________________________________________
Jan P. Patterson, Justice
Before Justices Yeakel, Patterson and Puryear
Affirmed
Filed: May 22, 2003
Do Not Publish
3