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.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-13-2018

Case Style:

Mark Anthony Martinez v. The State of Texas

MoreLaw Suites - Legal Suites and Virtual Offices

MoreLaw Performance Marketing

If It Does Not Work, It Is Free!

Case Number: 03-16-00529-CR

Judge: Scott K. Field

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

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

Defendant's Attorney: Mr. Chevo Pastrano

Description: 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.

Outcome: 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
© 1996-2019 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.