### i i i i i i



# MEM ORA ND UMOP INION No . 04 -0 8- 00 80 9- CR Martin M ARRO QU IN , Appellant
v . The STA TE of Texas, Appellee Fr om the 290th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CR-3428 Honora ble Sharon Mac Rae, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Sandee B ryan Marion , J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elin i, J ustice

Sandee B ryan Marion, J ustice Phylis J . Speedlin, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J uly 15, 2009 AFF I RMED De fe nd ant, Mart in M arr oq uin , ori g ina lly ple d guil ty to ag gra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult of a c hil d pursuant to a plea

barg ain. Howe ver, the trial court informed defe ndant it would not follow the plea
a gre e me nt a

nd a llo we d de fe nd ant t

he op po rt un ity to w ith dr aw h is p le a . D e fe nd ant i nd ic ate d h e did not wish to withdraw his plea, a nd he pled guilty

to ag gra v at ed s ex u al assault. The tria l court
a sse sse d p un ishme nt at tw e nty-f ive ye ars ’ c on fi ne me nt.04
- 08
- 00 80 9- CR

1 

## ... N o su b stitute c o u n se l will b e a p p o inte d
. See I n r e Schul m an , 252 S. W . 3d 403, 408 n
. 22 ( T ex . Cr i m. App. 2 0 0 8 ). Sho ul d de f

end ant wi sh t o s eek f

urt her r evi ew o f

t hi s case by t he T exas C o u rt o f C ri m i nal A p p eal s, de f end ant mus t ei t her ret ai n a n a t t orn ey t o f i l e a pet i t i on f

or di s cr et i onar y r evi ew or f i l e a p ro se pet i t i on f

or di s cr et i onar y r evi ew. A n y p e tit io n fo r d isc re tio n a ry re v ie w m u st b e filed w ithin thirty d a ys fro m the d a te o f eithe r th is o p inio n o r th e las t t im e ly m o tio n fo r re h e a rin g tha t i s o v e rr u le d b y this c o u rt. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 6 8 .2. A ny p eti t i o n for d i scre t i o na ry review m ust be f i l ed wi t h t h i s c ou r t , a f

t er w h i ch i t w i l l be f

or wa r ded t o t h e T ex as Cour t of Cr i mi n al Appea l s a l on g w i t h t h e r es t of the fi ling s in th is c a se . See T EX . R. A PP . P . 68
. 3
. A n y p e tit io n fo r di scr et i o nary revi ew m ust co m p l y wi t h t he re q u ire m e n ts o f T e x a s R u le s o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 6 8 .4
.

- 2- 

## Def endant’ s court-a

ppointed appellate attorney filed a b ri ef c ontaining a profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord and de monstrating that there a re no a rguable grounds to be adva nced. Counsel concludes that the appea l is withoutmerit. The brief m eets the require ments of Anders v. Cal ifo rn ia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). De fenda nt was informe d of his right to revie w the re cord. Counsel provided de fenda

nt with a copy

of the brie f and a dvised him of his right to file a pro se brief. Def endant did not file a

pro se br ief. After revie wingthe re cord a

nd counsel’s brief, we agree that the appe al is frivolous and wi tho ut m e ri t. A c c or din g ly , w e a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s judgme nt, and we GR AN T a pp e llate counsel’s motion to withdraw. 1 

## Nic ho ls v . S tate , 954 S.W .2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997,
no pe t.) ; Brun s v . S

tate , 924 S.W .2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
Sandee B ryan Marion , J ustice DO NO T PU B L I SH