Markeshia Marshall v. State ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
___________________
NO. 09-13-00333-CR
___________________
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
1
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. 1
AFFIRMED.
1
Marshall may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
2
______________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on November 4, 2014
Opinion Delivered May 13, 2015
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
3