M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Date: 01-16-2018

Case Style:

Jeremy Teak Palmer v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 03-16-00676-CR

Judge:

Court: TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

Plaintiff's Attorney: Mr. Joshua D. Presley
Mr. Daniel Palmitier
The Honorable Stacey M. Soule

Defendant's Attorney: Atanacio Campos

Description: A jury found appellant Jeremy Teak Palmer guilty of the felony offense of driving
while intoxicated with two or more previous convictions for the same type of offense, a third-degree
felony. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 49.04 (driving while intoxicated), 49.09 (offense under Section
49.04 enhanced to third-degree felony punishment if person previously convicted two times for same
type offense). In addition, Palmer pled true to two enhancement allegations alleging two prior felony
convictions for burglary of a vehicle. See id. § 30.04. After hearing evidence, including Palmer’s
testimony, the trial court assessed his punishment, enhanced pursuant to the repeat-offender
punishment provision of the Penal Code, at confinement for sixteen years in the Institutional
Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See id. §§ 12.33(a) (second-degree felony
punishment), 12.42(a) (enhancing punishment to second-degree felony).
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,
81-82 (1988).
Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he sent copies of the motion and
brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se
response, and provided a motion to assist appellant in obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State,
436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Appellant has
filed a pro se brief.

Outcome: We have conducted an independent review of the record—including the record of the proceedings below, appellate counsel’s brief, and appellant’s brief—and find no reversible error. 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.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2018 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.