Court Opinion

ID: 3102246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:20:56.602833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:44:35.455847
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-11-00045-CR

                                COURT OF APPEALS

                    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                       CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

ALONZO DEWAYNE MARSHALL
AKA ALONZO DEWAYNE MARXHALL,                                                            Appellant,

                                                  v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                      Appellee.

                      On appeal from the 252nd District Court
                           of Jefferson County, Texas.

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION1
     Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
                Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza
        On April 21, 2008, pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant Alonzo Dewayne

Marshall aka Alonzo Dewayne Marxhall pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled

        1
          This case is before the Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuant
to an order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2005).
substance, less than one gram of cocaine, a state jail felony.                   See TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (b) (West 2010). The trial court sentenced appellant to

two years’ imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—State Jail

Division, suspended the sentence, placed appellant on community supervision for five

years, and assessed a $2,500 fine. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.35 (West Supp.

2010). On November 18, 2010, the State filed a motion to revoke probation, alleging

that appellant violated conditions of his community supervision, including possession of

cocaine and possession of marijuana in a drug-free zone. Appellant pleaded ―not true‖

to the State’s allegations. Following a hearing on December 1, 2010, the trial court

found the State’s allegation of cocaine possession ―true,‖ revoked appellant’s

community supervision, and sentenced appellant to twelve months’ confinement in a

state jail facility. See id.

                                           I. ANDERS BRIEF

        Appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in

support thereof in which he states that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and

has concluded that there is no reversible error. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Counsel has informed this Court that he has (1) examined the record and has found no

arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served copies of the brief and motion to

withdraw on appellant, and (3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and to

file a pro se response.2 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
2
          The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that ―the pro se response need not comply with
the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the
case presents any meritorious issues.‖ In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App.

                                                    2
503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). More than an adequate time has passed, and no

pro se response has been filed. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008).

                                    II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

       Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and find

that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (―Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in

the opinion it considered the issues raised in the brief and reviewed the record for

reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas

Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.‖); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                    III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

       In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as

appellate counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d

at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995,

no pet.) (―If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from

representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney

must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that

the appeal is frivolous.‖) (citations omitted)). We grant the motion to withdraw.

       We order that counsel must, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a

2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).

                                                 3
copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant and advise him of his right to file a

petition for discretionary review.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

                                                           DORI CONTRERAS GARZA
                                                           Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered and filed the
11th day of August, 2011.

        3
           No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review by the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he 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 was
overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. 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. See TEX. R. APP. P.
68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

                                                      4