# Morkeith Davon Peterson v. State

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · December 6, 2012

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3120024

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** December 6, 2012
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3120024

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous
- explaining that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are “arguable grounds” for review

## Opinion text

Opinion issued December 6, 2012

In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas

NO. 01-11-00410-CR
____________

MORKEITH DAVON PETERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 149th District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 63225

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Morkeith Davon Peterson, pleaded guilty to the charge of

knowingly possessing, with intent to deliver, a controlled substance, namely

cocaine, in the amount of 4 grams or more but less than 200 grams, without an

agreed recommendation from the State regarding punishment. See TEX. HEALTH &
SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(3)(D); 481.112(a), (d) (West 2010). The trial court

found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at 25 years’ confinement. The trial

court certified appellant’s right to appeal. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,

along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and

therefore the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal

authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has

thoroughly reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of

error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell

v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Counsel has informed us that he has delivered a copy of the brief to appellant

and has informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a

response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Appellant has not filed a pro se response.

2
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable

grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S.

at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—

determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly

frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)

(explaining that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are “arguable

grounds” for review); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist);

Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds

exist by reviewing entire record). An appellant may challenge a holding that there

are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in

the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.1 Attorney D. Craig Hughes must immediately send the notice required

by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the

Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

1
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997).
3
PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

4

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3120024. Public record. Not legal advice.