Marcus Neal Meadows v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-21-00229-CR
__________________
MARCUS NEAL MEADOWS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 435th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 19-08-10586-CR
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A grand jury indicted Appellant Marcus Neal Meadows (“Appellant” or
“Meadows”) for evading arrest or detention with a vehicle, and the indictment also
alleged that during the commission of the offense or immediate flight therefrom
Meadows used or exhibited a deadly weapon, namely a vehicle. See Tex. Penal Code
Ann. § 38.04(b)(2). The State provided Meadows with notice of its intent to enhance
punishment based on two enhancement paragraphs. Meadows elected to have a jury
determine the special issue of whether he used or exhibited a vehicle as a deadly
1
weapon, and Meadows elected to have the jury assess punishment. In the jury’s
presence, Meadows pleaded guilty to the offense of evading arrest or detention with
a motor vehicle and pleaded “true” to the two enhancements for felony convictions.
After hearing evidence on the special issue at the punishment phase of the trial, the
jury found Meadows guilty and found the enhancements to be true, the jury found
that Meadows used or exhibited a deadly weapon, and the trial court accepted the
verdict. The jury assessed punishment at forty-five years of confinement. Meadows
filed a notice of appeal.
On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he
has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and
applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We
granted extensions of time for Meadows to file a pro se brief, and we received no
response from Meadows.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination
of the record of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly
frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).
We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing
that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-
28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the
2
opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for
reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”) Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order
appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on July 6, 2022
Opinion Delivered July 13, 2022
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
1
Meadows may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3