From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marshall v. State

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
May 13, 2015
NO. 09-13-00333-CR (Tex. App. May. 13, 2015)

Opinion

NO. 09-13-00333-CR

05-13-2015

MARKESHIA MARSHALL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 292155

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant Markeshia Marshall guilty of assault, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court assessed punishment at ninety days in county jail, probated for one year, and imposed a $500 fine as a condition of probation.

Marshall's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California., 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel's brief presents his professional evaluation of the record and concludes there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in this appeal. Counsel provided Marshall with a copy of this brief. We granted an extension of time for Marshall to file a pro se brief. Marshall filed a pro se brief raising a number of issues on appeal.

The appellate court need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In these circumstances, we "may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that [the appellate court] has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error. Or, [we] may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues." Id. (citations omitted).

We have independently reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree with Marshall's appellate counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Marshall's appeal. See id.; compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Marshall may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

AFFIRMED.

/s/_________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice
Submitted on November 4, 2014
Opinion Delivered May 13, 2015
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.


Summaries of

Marshall v. State

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
May 13, 2015
NO. 09-13-00333-CR (Tex. App. May. 13, 2015)
Case details for

Marshall v. State

Case Details

Full title:MARKESHIA MARSHALL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

Date published: May 13, 2015

Citations

NO. 09-13-00333-CR (Tex. App. May. 13, 2015)