From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marshall v. State

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Sep 26, 2012
NO. 09-12-00069-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 26, 2012)

Opinion

NO. 09-12-00069-CRNO. 09-12-00070-CRNO. 09-12-00071-CRNO. 09-12-00072-CR

09-26-2012

DEREK SCOTT MARSHALL A/K/A DEREK MARSHALL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 10-08776, 10-10315, 10-10316, 10-10317


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Derek Scott Marshall appeals from the trial court's orders revoking his deferred adjudication community supervision and adjudicating his guilt in four offenses: one offense of burglary of a habitation (a habitual felony offender) (cause number 10-08776), and three offenses of burglary of a building enhanced by prior felony convictions (cause numbers 10-10315, 10-10316, and10-10317). The trial court sentenced Marshall to twenty-five years in the burglary-of-a-habitation offense and ten years each in the three burglary-of-a-building offenses. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Marshall's attorney filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Marshall filed a pro se brief. The Court of Criminal Appeals has explained that an appellate court may determine in an Anders case either (1) "that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error"; or (2) "that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues." Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In each case, we have reviewed the Anders brief, the pro se response, the State's brief, the clerk's record, and the reporter's record. We agree with Marshall's counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. It is unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. See id.; compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the convictions.

AFFIRMED.

_______________

DAVID GAULTNEY

Justice
Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.


Summaries of

Marshall v. State

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Sep 26, 2012
NO. 09-12-00069-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 26, 2012)
Case details for

Marshall v. State

Case Details

Full title:DEREK SCOTT MARSHALL A/K/A DEREK MARSHALL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF…

Court:Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

Date published: Sep 26, 2012

Citations

NO. 09-12-00069-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 26, 2012)