Martinez
v.
State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTINSep 13, 2018
NO. 03-16-00529-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 13, 2018)

NO. 03-16-00529-CR

09-13-2018

Mark Anthony Martinez, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee


FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. CR2013-525
, HONORABLE R. BRUCE BOYER, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Mark Anthony Martinez was charged with burglary of a building, a state-jail felony enhanced to a second-degree felony. Tex. Penal Code § 30.02. After a jury trial, the trial court rendered a judgment of conviction for the underlying offense. The trial court assessed Martinez's punishment at ten years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division.

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 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 86-87 (1988).

Appellant's counsel has represented to the Court that he has provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant; advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief; and provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. Smith, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. Martinez has filed a pro se brief.

We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate counsel's brief and Martinez's brief, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous.

Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

/s/_________


Scott K. Field, Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field Affirmed Filed: September 13, 2018 Do Not Publish