IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-06-00262-CR
MICHAEL ANTHONY LOPEZ,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 361st District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 06-00154-CRF-361
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Michael Anthony Lopez was convicted of first-degree murder. See TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 19.02 (Vernon 2003). He was sentenced to 75 years in prison. Lopez
appeals. Counsel for Lopez filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967). We affirm.
Counsel informed Lopez of the right to file a brief, and Lopez has filed one. The
State waived filing a response. Counsel’s brief reviews the propriety of not objecting to
the State’s evidence, the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence, and the
correctness of the sentence within the legal range of punishment. Counsel’s brief
evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that
counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders at 744.
Counsel concluded that the appeal had no arguable issues. Lopez’s brief does not
clearly identify any arguable issues.
We must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, . . . decide whether the
case is wholly frivolous.” Anders at 744; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Coronado v. State, 996 S.W.2d 283, 285 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999,
order) (per curiam), disp. on merits, 25 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, pet. ref’d).
An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or
fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10 (1988). Arguments are frivolous
when they “cannot conceivably persuade the court.” Id. at 436. An appeal is not wholly
frivolous when it is based on “arguable grounds.” Stafford at 511.
After a review of the entire record, we determine that the appeal is wholly
frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Counsel’s request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Lopez is
granted. Counsel must, nevertheless, advise Lopez of our decision and of the right to
file a petition for discretionary review. See Ibarra v. State, 226 S.W.3d 481, 482-483 (Tex.
App.—Waco 2006, no pet.); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App.
2006).
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Lopez v. State Page 2
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed November 5, 2008
Do not publish
[CRPM]
Lopez v. State Page 3