Verba Felicia Peterson v. The State of Texas Appeal from 432nd District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-17-00065-CR VERBA FELICIA PETERSON APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------- FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1460794R ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------Appellant Verba Felicia Peterson appeals her third-degree-felony conviction for falsely holding herself out as a lawyer.2 After a grand jury indicted her for that offense, she pleaded guilty. While entering the plea, she waived constitutional and statutory rights and judicially confessed to committing the 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 2 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.122(a)–(b) (West 2016). crime. After the trial court received a presentence investigation report and conducted a sentencing hearing, it sentenced her to three years’ confinement. She brought this appeal. Peterson’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief under Anders v. California, representing that Peterson has no “nonfrivolous basis upon which to appeal her conviction and sentence.” 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 Peterson an opportunity to file a pro se response to counsel’s brief, and on January 11, 2018, she filed a document that we construe as her response. 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 Peterson’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 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also 2 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.3 /s/ Wade Birdwell WADE BIRDWELL JUSTICE PANEL: SUDDERTH, C.J.; PITTMAN and BIRDWELL, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: July 26, 2018 3 On June 21, 2018, Peterson filed a letter that we construe as a motion for an appeal bond. We deny that motion as moot. 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.
