eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2018-07

Verba Felicia Peterson v. State ( 2018 )


Menu:
 
  •                           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