73J-/S
Markeshia Marshall AnnManes ORIGINAL
2340 Monroe Street Assistant District Attorney
Beaumont, TX 77703 1001 Pearl St Ste 3000
Beaumont, TX 77701-3549
(HAND DELIVERED)
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
June 12, 2015 JUN17 2D15
RE: Case Number 09-13-00333-CR
Trail Court Case
292155 FILED \N
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
JUN 19 2015
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 thatthe victim is this case has perjured
her. One she file a complaint statingthat 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 tookthe
case almost two years to go to trial in which she stated thatthe phone had been
•y>
broken 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 thejustices system
but I do not think it is right to wrongfully prosecute a person who did not commit
the crime theyare accused of. I have lostmyjob 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 courtreview 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 wouldhave 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.
fln
\-\l-u
In The
Court ofAppeals
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. K
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
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.
AFFIRMED.
'Marshall may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on November 4, 2014
Opinion Delivered May 13, 2015
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.