eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2016-08

Javon Peterson v. State ( 2016 )


Menu:
 
  •                            COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-15-00209-CR
JAVON PETERSON                                                     APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                    STATE
----------
FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 5 OF DENTON COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. CR-2013-03810-E
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Javon Peterson appeals her conviction for driving while
intoxicated (DWI).2 We affirm.
The State charged appellant with committing DWI. At trial, she pled not
guilty. After receiving the parties’ evidence and arguments, a jury found her
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a) (West Supp. 2016).
guilty. Appellant chose the trial court to decide her punishment. The trial court
assessed thirty days’ confinement but suspended imposition of that sentence and
placed appellant on community supervision, with several conditions, for twelve
months. Appellant brought this appeal, and the trial court appointed counsel to
represent her.
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and
a brief under Anders v. California, representing that there are “no non-frivolous
issues” that could support the appeal.
    386 U.S. 738
    , 744–45,
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    ,
1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by
presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds for relief. See id.; In re Schulman,
    252 S.W.3d 403
    ,
406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (analyzing the effect of
Anders). We gave appellant an opportunity to file a pro se response to counsel’s
brief, and she did so. The State has not filed a brief.
Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on
the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we
must independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State,
    813 S.W.2d 503
    ,
511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).       Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio,
    488 U.S. 75
    , 82–83,
    109 S. Ct. 346
    , 351 (1988).
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s
pro se response. We agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous and without
merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See
2
Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also
Meza v. State,
    206 S.W.3d 684
    , 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/s/ Terrie Livingston
TERRIE LIVINGSTON
CHIEF JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GABRIEL and SUDDERTH, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 26, 2016
3