Marquse Lewayne Boston v. State

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-19-00197-CR
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
October 29, 2019
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 Anders1 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.
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.2
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals.
2