Martin Shawn Carswell v. The State of Texas Appeal from 266th District Court of Erath County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed November 22, 2017 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-17-00172-CR __________ MARTIN SHAWN CARSWELL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 266th District Court Erath County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR14590 MEMORANDUM OPINION Martin Shawn Carswell pleaded guilty to the offense of felony driving while intoxicated and true to an enhancement allegation. As instructed, the jury found Appellant guilty and found the enhancement allegation to be true. The jury assessed punishment at confinement for twenty years and a fine of $2,000. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and a copy of the motion to withdraw. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Appellant filed a pro se response in which he states, “I’ve done wrong but 20 years is asinine punishment.” Appellant also states in his response that he does not “feel like [he] was properly represented in this case.” Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (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. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the 2 attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. PER CURIAM November 22, 2017 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
