Pedro P. Morales v. The State of Texas Appeal from 340th District Court of Tom Green County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-15-00227-CR Pedro P. Morales, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 340TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. C-14-1091-SA, HONORABLE BEN WOODWARD, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Pedro Perez Morales was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, a third degree felony. Tex. Penal Code § 46.04(a). A jury found Morales guilty and assessed his punishment at five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a $2,000 fine. Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 86–87 (1988). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We have not received a pro se brief from the appellant. We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate counsel’s brief, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. __________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field Affirmed Filed: October 7, 2015 Do Not Publish 2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.
