Jacob Schwem-Casey v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 3, 2008
Docket04-08-00031-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Jacob Schwem-Casey v. State (Jacob Schwem-Casey v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jacob Schwem-Casey v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion


MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00031-CR

Jacob SCHWEM-CASEY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 7, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 217032

Honorable Monica Guerrero, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:     Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Sitting:            Karen Angelini, Justice

                        Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

                        Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed:   December 3, 2008

AFFIRMED

After entering a plea of not guilty, on October 3, 2007, Appellant Jacob Schwem-Casey was found guilty by a jury for the offense of family violence-bodily injury.  The trial court subsequently sentenced Schwem-Casey to one year confinement in the Bexar County Jail, suspended and probated for a term of two years and assessed a fine in the amount of $4,000.00, of which $3,500.00 was probated.

Schwem-Casey’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).  Counsel concludes that the appeal has no merit.  Counsel provided Schwem-Casey with a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to review the record and file his own brief.  See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).  Schwem-Casey did not file a pro se brief.

            After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (noting court of appeals should not address merits of issues raised in Anders brief or pro se response but should only determine if the appeal is frivolous).  The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.  Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.  Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

Do Not Publish



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Bruns v. State
924 S.W.2d 176 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Nichols v. State
954 S.W.2d 83 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jacob Schwem-Casey v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacob-schwem-casey-v-state-texapp-2008.