No. PD -1121-14
No. PD-U22-X4 ORIGINAL
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
MARCUS LEE JEFFERSON
COURT OF CRIMNAUPPEALS
Appellant
APR 02 2015
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Abel Acosta, Clerk
Appellee
Trial Court 180th Cause Numbers 1321017 & 1359031
Court of Appeals Numbers 01-12-01075-CR & 01-12-01076-CR
A PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FOR APPELLANT
FILED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
ApR 022015 MARCUS LEE JEFFERSON
APPELLANT
Abel Acosta, Clerk
19822 River Breeze Dr.
Tomball, TX. 77375
Phone: (281) 773-1448
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL
ARGRUMENT 4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 4
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL
HISTORY 5
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW 5
ARGUMENT 6
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 7
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes
Tex. Pen. Code §71.02 4
Tex. Pen. Code §32.45 4
Constitutional Provisions
U. S. Const. Amend V 6
U. S. Const. Amend XIV 6
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Oral argument has been waived.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mr. Jeffersonwas charged with engaging in organized crime and
Misapplication of fiduciary duty (1 C.R. 1 at 2) (2 C.R. at 2). See Tex. Pen. Code
§71.02 & §32.45. Mr. Jefferson entered pleas of "not guilty" (3 R.R. at 19-20). After a
trial, a jury found Mr. Jeffersonguilty as charged and sentenced him to (10) years
community supervision for engaging in organized crime and (6) years confinement in
the Texas Department of Corrections - Institutional Division for misapplication of
fiduciary property (1 C.R. 3 at 456) (2 C.R. at 162). A motion for a new trial was filed
but not presented (1 C.R 3 at 515) (2 C.R. at 210).
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Opinion issued August 14, 2014
Motion for rehearing was filed on August 22, 2014
Motion was disposed of N/A
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
The review in these cases are necessary due to a case of double
jeopardy (5th amendment) and prosecutorial misconduct. Also, to show how the
court of appeals departed from a usual course of judicial proceedings that involved
the lower courts.
ARGUMENT
APPELANT BELIEVES THAT THE REVIEW IN THIS CASE IS
NECESSARY DUE TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT. THE
PROSECUTORS IN THIS CASE ACTED IN AN INAPPROPRIATE AND
UNFAIR MANNER BY KNOWINGLY PERMITTING FALSE TESTIMONY.
ASLO, ADDING ADDITIONAL CHAREGES BEFORE TRAIL
QUESTIONING (DOUBLE JEPORODY) AND VIOLATING MR.
JEFFERSON'S 5™ AND 14th AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
ALSO, IN QUESTION IS THE APPEALS COURT HANDLING
OF THE CONFLICT OF INTERST WITH COURT APPOINTED APPEAL
ATTORNEY AND PREVIOUS TRAIL ATTORNEY.
PRAYER
When hard pressed, I cried to the Lord; he brought me into a
spacious place. The Lord is with me. He is my helper. For the reasons stated above,
the undersigned prays that his conviction and sentence continues to be reviewed.
Respectfully submitted,
^k4~—
Marcus Lee Jefferson
Appellant
19822 River Breeze Dr.
Tomball, Texas 77375
Phone: 281-773-1448
Opinion issued August 14, 2014.
In The
Court of gppeate
For The
nftrat 3Bt*trict of t&txax
NOS. 01-12-01075-CR & 01-12-01076-CR
MARCUS LEE JEFFERSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 180th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 1321017 & 1359031
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant, Marcus Lee Jefferson, guilty of the offenses of the
misapplication of fiduciary property and engaging in organized criminal activity,
specifically theft. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 31.03(a), 32.45(b), 71.02(a)(1)
(West 2011). The jury then sentenced Jefferson to 6 years in prison for the
misapplication of fiduciary property. For engaging in organized criminal activity,
the jury sentenced Jefferson to 10 years in prison, but recommended that the trial
court suspend the sentence and place Jefferson on community supervision for 10
years, and it imposed a $5,000 fine. See id. §§ 12.32, 31.03(e)(7), 32.45(c)(7)
(West 2011). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,
along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and 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 id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812
(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the
record and 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.).
In his pro se response to the Anders brief, Jefferson contends that (1) the trial
court improperly denied his motions to suppress; and (2) the State committed
prosecutorial misconduct.
After independently reviewing the entire record in this appeal, we conclude
that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for
review, and 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) (holding that reviewing court must
determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155
(holding that reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by
reviewing entire record). We note that an appellant may challenge a holding that
there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary
review in the Texas 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 Angela Cameron must immediately send appellant the
required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See Tex.
R. App. P. 6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
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).