Kendall McWilliams, Administrator of the Estate of LaWanda McWilliams, Deceased, and Next Friend of Keith McWilliams, a Minor, and Seth Andrew McWilliams, a Minor v. Robert John Masterson, Werner Ente

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 7th District Court of Appeals » 2003 » Kendall McWilliams, Administrator of the Estate of LaWanda McWilliams, Deceased, and Next Friend of Keith McWilliams, a Minor, and Seth Andrew McWilliams, a Minor v. Robert John Masterson, Werner Ente

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 07-01-00476-CV

Case Date: 08/05/2003

Plaintiff: Jesse McGinnis

Defendant: State of Texas--Appeal from 70th District Court of Ector County

Preview:Levi Samuel Love v. The State of Texas--Appeal from
252nd District Court of Jefferson County
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
NO. 09-07-242 CR
LEVI SAMUEL LOVE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 98151
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Levi Samuel Love appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann.
22.02(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2007). Appellate counsel filed a brief concluding the record revealed no reversible error.
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978). Love filed a pro se response brief presenting three issues for review. The State filed a brief
contending Love's pro se issues lack merit. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
The Court of Criminal Appeals directs that we 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). Rather, an appellate court may determine
either (1) "that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds
no reversible error"; or (2) "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.
After careful review of the entire record, the briefs of appellate counsel and the State, along with the pro se brief of
appellant, we find no arguable error. See id. Appointment of new counsel is not required. Compare Stafford v. State,
813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant is free to file a petition for discretionary review raising error
by this Court in the instant appeal. (1) All pro se motions currently pending before the Court are denied. We affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on October 1, 2007
Opinion Delivered March 12, 2008
Do not publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/9391.html[8/20/2013 7:31:36 PM]

1. However, "[w]hile an appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review with [the Court of Criminal
Appeals], review is not a matter of right." Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 n.6 (citing Tex. R. App. P. 66.2).
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/9391.html[8/20/2013 7:31:36 PM]

Download 9391.pdf