Court Opinion

ID: 9406844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-04 12:07:22.455583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:33.624266
License: Public Domain

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-