Peter John Schuster v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 208th District Court of Harris County

Annotate this Case

Opinion issued May 25, 2005

 

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

__________

 

NOS. 01-05-00650-CR

01-05-00651-CR

01-05-00652-CR

___________

 

PETER JOHN SCHUSTER, Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 208th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1002296, 1002297, and 1002298

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Peter John Schuster, pleaded guilty to three separate felony offense of possession of child pornography without an agreed recommendation as to punishment with the State, and the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for two years in each case. We affirm.

Appellant s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that the appeal in each case is without merit. Counsel s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record that demonstrates the lack of arguable grounds of error. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Moore v. State, 845 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref d).

Counsel represents that he served a copy of the brief on appellant. Counsel also advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate records and file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel s brief. We find no reversible error in the record, and agree that the appeal is without merit. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court in each case.

We grant counsel s motion to withdraw. // See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

Any pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Jennings and Alcala.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

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.