Martin Torres v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 6, 2009
Docket03-08-00394-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Martin Torres v. State (Martin Torres 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
Martin Torres v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN



NO. 03-08-00394-CR
Martin Torres, Appellant


v.



The State of Texas, Appellee



FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-05-900254, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N


A jury found appellant guilty of murder. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02 (West 2003). The trial court assessed punishment at imprisonment for life and ordered that the sentence run consecutively to the life sentence appellant previously received for another murder.

The deceased was bludgeoned, strangled, and sexually assaulted in June 1990. Appellant was indicted in August 2005 after his DNA was found in biological samples that had been taken from the deceased's body and preserved during the initial investigation.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a thorough, professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel's brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.



___________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop

Affirmed

Filed: February 6, 2009

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)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Jackson v. State
485 S.W.2d 553 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Gainous v. State
436 S.W.2d 137 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Currie v. State
516 S.W.2d 684 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Martin Torres v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-torres-v-state-texapp-2009.