Case Information
*1
738-15
Márkeshia Marshall 2340 Monroe Street Beaumont, TX 77703 404-455-171 404-550-7141
Ann Manes ORIGINAL Assistant District Attorney 1001 Pearl St Ste 3000 Beaumont, TX 77701-3549 (HAND DELIVERED) RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JUN 172015 Abel Acosta, Clerk
RE: Case Number 292155 FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JUN 192015 Style: Markeshia Marshall V.
Abel Acosta, Clerk The State of Texas
Pro se PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
To the said Court in references to this case: I, Markeshia Marshall, am filing this petition because I have been denied on all other parts of this appeal. My argument is that the victim is this case has perjured her. One she file a complaint stating that myself and my family all attacked her. During the trial she produced photos from a cellphone that was not brought to court until the day of trial, with no date or time stamp on the photos. It took the case almost two years to go to trial in which she stated that the phone had been
*2 bròken in that process. When asked to be photograph by the crime scene people she did not do it, the officer and others stated that she didn't even have a bruise. The day of trial she produces pictures that she could have altered over the course of the years. When she testified she spoke on Andrea Berry hitting her and this was also not true. The officer in the case was not called as a witness but a Character witness in whom he was not allowed to state the facts that on the day in question she stated that my family attacked her. I was not arrest that day in fact it was several months later that I turned myself in and bonded out. At this time I was advised she had made several statements that Andrea Berry could have harmed her by then and she wanted charges filed against me. I believe in the justices system but I do not think it is right to wrongfully prosecute a person who did not commit the crime they are accused of. I have lost my job and so much due to this charge, and as stated in court the victim did not have a scratch on her face when the police arrived at the scene that day. I am asking that this court review all the information I have submitted to the court to find the truth that I did not assault this lady. Also my lawyer at the time would not subpoena an un-bias witness in the case Brittney Davis who also was question by police. She was not allowed to give her statement to the court and this would have changed the whole process in this case. The truth would have been form a third party who had nothing to do with this. I am pleading with the court to look into this case and reverse this decision.
*3
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
NO. 09-13-00333-CR
MARKESHIA MARSHALL, Appellant V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 292155
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant Markeshia Marshall guilty of assault, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court assessed punishment at ninety days in county jail, probated for one year, and imposed a $500 fine as a condition of probation.
Marshall’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel’s brief presents his professional evaluation of the record and concludes there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in this appeal. Counsel provided
*4 Marshall with a copy of this brief. We granted an extension of time for Marshall to file a pro se brief. Marshall filed a pro se brief raising a number of issues on appeal.
The appellate court need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In these circumstances, we "may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that [the appellate court] has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error. Or, [we] may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues." Id. (citations omitted).
We have independently reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree with Marshall's appellate counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Marshall's appeal. See id.; compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. [1]
AFFIRMED. [1] Marshall may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
*5
CHARLES KREGER Justice
Submitted on November 4, 2014 Opinion Delivered May 13, 2015 Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.