Javon Peterson v. The State of Texas Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 5 of Denton County (memorandum opinion by chief justice livingston)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-15-00209-CR JAVON PETERSON APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 5 OF DENTON COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. CR-2013-03810-E ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------Appellant Javon Peterson appeals her conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI).2 We affirm. The State charged appellant with committing DWI. At trial, she pled not guilty. After receiving the parties’ evidence and arguments, a jury found her 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 2 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a) (West Supp. 2016). guilty. Appellant chose the trial court to decide her punishment. The trial court assessed thirty days’ confinement but suspended imposition of that sentence and placed appellant on community supervision, with several conditions, for twelve months. Appellant brought this appeal, and the trial court appointed counsel to represent her. Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief under Anders v. California, representing that there are “no non-frivolous issues” that could support the appeal. 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (analyzing the effect of Anders). We gave appellant an opportunity to file a pro se response to counsel’s brief, and she did so. The State has not filed a brief. Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we must independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se response. We agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See 2 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. /s/ Terrie Livingston TERRIE LIVINGSTON CHIEF JUSTICE PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GABRIEL and SUDDERTH, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: August 26, 2016 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.
