Juan Antonio Perez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 22nd District Court of Hays County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-04-00286-CR NO. 03-04-00287-CR Juan Antonio Perez, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS. CR-03-793 & CR-03-794, HONORABLE DON MORGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted appellant Juan Antonio Perez for assaulting a public servant (two counts) and possessing more than fifty pounds of marihuana. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.01 (West Supp. 2004-05); Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121 (West 2003). The district court assessed punishment for each offense, enhanced by a previous felony conviction, at imprisonment for fifteen years and a $10,000 fine. Appellant s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant was given a copy of counsel s brief and advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. We have reviewed the record and counsel s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgments of conviction are affirmed. __________________________________________ Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Pemberton Affirmed Filed: February 3, 2005 Do Not Publish 2
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.
