Mark Peterson v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 5, 2008
Docket04-08-00034-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Mark Peterson v. State (Mark Peterson 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
Mark Peterson v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00034-CR

Mark C. PETERSON, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 7, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 983845 Honorable Monica Guerrero, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 5, 2008

AFFIRMED

A jury found Mark C. Peterson, defendant, guilty of assault-bodily injury, and the trial court

assessed punishment.

Defendant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional

evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.

Counsel concludes that the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Defendant was informed of his right to review the record. Counsel 04-08-00034-CR

provided defendant with a copy of the brief and advised him of his right to file a pro se brief.

Defendant 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. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, and we GRANT appellate

counsel’s motion to withdraw.1 Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 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.).

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 … No substitute counsel will be appointed. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d 403, 408 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Should defendant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, defendant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 68.4.

-2-

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)
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)
Mark Peterson v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-peterson-v-state-texapp-2008.