John Anthony Scharringhausen v. the State of Texas
This text of John Anthony Scharringhausen v. the State of Texas (John Anthony Scharringhausen v. the State of Texas) 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.
Opinion
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-21-00565-CR
John Anthony SCHARRINGHAUSEN, Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020CR2612 Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Beth Watkins, Justice
Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 28, 2023
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
Appellant John Anthony Scharringhausen entered a plea of not guilty at the beginning of
his murder trial. After the State rested, Scharringhausen changed his plea to no contest and the trial
court found the evidence sufficient to substantiate the plea. The trial court sentenced
Scharringhausen to a term of forty years’ confinement. After sentencing, Scharringhausen filed a
motion to withdraw his plea, which the trial court denied. Scharringhausen then filed a motion for
new trial on the grounds that he was harmed by relying on his trial counsel’s judgment in changing
his plea. 04-21-00565-CR
Scharringhausen’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 Scharringhausen 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.). Scharringhausen 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. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate counsel’s request to withdraw
is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will
be appointed. Should Scharringhausen wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals, Scharringhausen must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review or Scharringhausen must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of: (1) the date of
this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the
requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
Beth Watkins, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
John Anthony Scharringhausen v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-anthony-scharringhausen-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.