Kristopher Blake Martin v. The State of Texas Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 9 of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-15-00396-CR KRISTOPHER BLAKE MARTIN APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 9 OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1411512 ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------Appellant Kristopher Blake Martin appeals his conviction for assault causing bodily injury. Martin’s court-appointed, appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel avers that in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State, the record demonstrates that Martin was notified of counsel’s motion to withdraw, provided a copy of the motion and brief, informed of his right to file a pro se response, and informed of his right to seek discretionary review should this court hold the appeal is frivolous; further, concrete measures were taken to facilitate Martin’s review of the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court informed Martin that he could file a pro se reply, but he did not do so. The State submitted a letter informing this court that it would not be providing briefing but reserved the right to do so if this court found an arguable ground for appeal. Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). 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 and counsel’s brief, and we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 2 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment. /s/ Bill Meier BILL MEIER JUSTICE PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: August 25, 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.
