Opinion
No. 07-19-00197-CR
10-29-2019
MARQUSE LEWAYNE BOSTON, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 108th District Court Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 74,930-E-CR, Honorable Douglas R. Woodburn, Presiding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
Marquse Lewayne Boston, appellant, was charged with assault on a family or household member with a previous conviction for same. After pleading guilty to that offense, he was placed on four years deferred adjudication probation. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant's guilt, and a hearing was held on an amended version of the motion. At the hearing, appellant entered a plea of true to several of the allegations contained in the State's motion. The trial court granted the motion, found appellant guilty, and sentenced him to ten years in prison. Appellant appealed.
Appellant's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw together with an Anders brief. Through those documents, he certifies to the court that, after diligently searching the record, the appeal is without merit. Accompanying the brief and motion is a copy of a letter sent by counsel to appellant informing the latter of counsel's belief that there is no reversible error and of appellant's right to file a response, pro se, to counsel's Anders brief. So too did counsel provide appellant with a copy of the clerk's and reporter's records, according to the letter. By letter dated September 18, 2019, this court notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by October 18, 2019, if he wished to do so. To date, no response has been received.
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed.2d 493 (1967).
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal. However, he then explained why the issues lacked merit.
We conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel's conclusions and to uncover arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). No issues of arguable merit were uncovered, however.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice Do not publish.