Ex Parte Mary Jane Flores

No. 04-97-00797-CR EX PARTE Mary Jane FLORES From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 94-CR-6456 Honorable Mary Román, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Alma L. López, Justice Catherine Stone, Justice Sarah B. Duncan, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 5, 1998 AFFIRMED In this habeas corpus appeal, Flores alleges a violation of her right not to face double jeopardy. Appellant's first conviction, for murder in 1995, was reversed due to prosecutorial misconduct. See Flores v. State, 940 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Appellant's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which he raises one arguable point of error, whether double jeopardy principles bar retrial of Flores following reversal of her conviction because prosecutors suppressed exculpatory evidence. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently held that retrial following a reversal due in part to prosecutorial misconduct does not present a constitutional claim of double jeopardy. See Ex parte Davis, 957 S.W.2d 9 (Tex. Crim App. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1307 (1998). Counsel concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel states that appellant was provided with a copy of the brief and informed of her right to review the record and file her own brief. Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Flores did not file a pro se brief. We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we GRANT counsel's motion to withdraw. See Nichols v. State, No. 04-97-00030-CR (Tex. App.--San Antonio July 23, 1997); Bruns 924 S.W.2d at 177, n.1. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH Return to 4th Court of Appeals Opinions