Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Dennis Mike Cranfill aka Dennis Cranfield v. The State of Texas
Date: 02-22-2017
Case Number: 13-16-00399-CR
Judge: Nora Longoria
Court: COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Hon. Ashley Knight
Hon. Allison Palmer
Hon. Lisa Carol McMinn
Defendant's Attorney: Hon. Kirk Hawkins
Description:
Cranfill’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support in
which he states that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and has found no non
frivolous issues. See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978). Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a thorough,
professional evaluation of the record showing why there are no arguable grounds for
advancing an appeal. See ln re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008) (orig. proceeding) (“ln Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance
'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to
the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”); Stafford v. State,
813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).
In compliance with High, 573 S.W.2d at 813, Cranfill’s counsel carefully discussed
why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court's judgment.
Cranfill’s counsel also informed this Court that he has: (1) notified Cranfill that he has
filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided Cranfill with copies of both
pleadings; (3) informed Cranfill of his rights to file a pro se response, to review the record
preparatory to filing that response, and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that
the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided Cranfill with a form motion for pro se access to
the appellate record, lacking only Cranfill’s signature. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly
v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also ln re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 409 n.23.
An adequate amount of time has passed, and Cranfill has not requested pro se
access to the appellate record or filed a pro se response.
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and we have found
no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion it considered the
issues raised in the brief and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the
court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”);
Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.
which he states that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and has found no non
frivolous issues. See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978). Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a thorough,
professional evaluation of the record showing why there are no arguable grounds for
advancing an appeal. See ln re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008) (orig. proceeding) (“ln Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance
'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to
the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”); Stafford v. State,
813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).
In compliance with High, 573 S.W.2d at 813, Cranfill’s counsel carefully discussed
why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court's judgment.
Cranfill’s counsel also informed this Court that he has: (1) notified Cranfill that he has
filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided Cranfill with copies of both
pleadings; (3) informed Cranfill of his rights to file a pro se response, to review the record
preparatory to filing that response, and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that
the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided Cranfill with a form motion for pro se access to
the appellate record, lacking only Cranfill’s signature. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly
v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also ln re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 409 n.23.
An adequate amount of time has passed, and Cranfill has not requested pro se
access to the appellate record or filed a pro se response.
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and we have found
no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion it considered the
issues raised in the brief and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the
court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”);
Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Dennis Mike Cranfill aka Dennis Cranfield v. The State of...?
The outcome was: We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Which court heard Dennis Mike Cranfill aka Dennis Cranfield v. The State of...?
This case was heard in COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, TX. The presiding judge was Nora Longoria.
Who were the attorneys in Dennis Mike Cranfill aka Dennis Cranfield v. The State of...?
Plaintiff's attorney: Hon. Ashley Knight Hon. Allison Palmer Hon. Lisa Carol McMinn. Defendant's attorney: Hon. Kirk Hawkins.
When was Dennis Mike Cranfill aka Dennis Cranfield v. The State of... decided?
This case was decided on February 22, 2017.