MATEO GARCIA v. NUECES COUNTY EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION--Appeal from 214th District Court of Nueces County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 13th District Court of Appeals » 2008 » MATEO GARCIA v. NUECES COUNTY EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION--Appeal from 214th District Court of Nueces County

State: Texas

Court: Criminal Court of Appeals

Docket No: 13-08-00209-CV

Case Date: 11/20/2008

Plaintiff: MATEO GARCIA

Defendant: NUECES COUNTY EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION--Appeal from 214th District Court of Nueces County

Preview:Steven Schiefelbein a/k/a Stephen Schiefelbein a/k/a
Stephan Schiefelbein v. The State of Texas--Appeal
from 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-03-00567-CR
Steven SCHIEFELBEIN,
a/k/a Stephen Schiefelbein a/k/a Stephan Schiefelbein
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2002-CR-6490
Honorable Robert R. Barton, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 7, 2004
AFFIRMED
A jury found defendant, Steven Schiefelbein, guilty of aggravated assault on a public servant with a deadly weapon,
and assessed punishment at sixty years' confinement.
Defendant's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and
demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes that the appeal is without merit.
The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Defendant was informed of his right to review the record. Counsel provided defendant with a copy of the brief and
advised him of his right to file a pro se brief. Defendant filed a brief in which he makes four complaints. First,
defendant expresses his "disappointment" with this court's treatment of him because this court has repeatedly refused
his request for the record in a previous trial, which he contends he needs for the purpose of filing a post-conviction
application for writ of habeas corpus. An indigent criminal defendant is not entitled to a free record of prior
proceedings for the purpose of preparing a post-conviction habeas corpus application. In re Strickhausen, 994 S.W.2d
936, 937 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (orig. proceeding); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Tex. App.--
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/17291.html[8/20/2013 7:44:18 PM]

San Antonio 1998) (orig proceeding). Defendant's second complaint also pertains to his previous trial in which he
asserts the trial court reprimanded him and threatened him with contempt when he (as opposed to his defense attorney)
voiced his objection to the testimony of a State witness. Defendant also states he personally did not raise other
objections because he felt intimidated by the trial judge. We do not address the merits of these complaints because an
appeal from that trial is not before this court. Third, defendant contends he was "railroaded" by the trial court, the
District Attorney's Office, and his appointed trial counsel, and his attempts to dismiss appointed counsel were
"thwarted" by the trial court. We construe these contentions as a complaint that defendant did not receive effective
assistance of counsel. However, defendant has waived this complaint because he points to no specific action or
inaction on trial counsel's part that rendered his assistance ineffective. Finally, defendant asserts his sixty-year
confinement is "extremely harsh" and constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" because only he was injured and
only he lost property. This complaint has no merit because defendant was convicted of a first degree felony, the jury
found the allegations in the enhancement count (voluntary manslaughter) true, and defendant's sixty-year sentence was
within the statutory range. Furthermore, this complaint was waived because defendant did not raise it before the trial
court during the punishment phase of trial or in a motion for new trial. See Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1995).
We have reviewed the record and appellate counsel's brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954
S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns 924 S.W.2d at 177, n.1.
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/17291.html[8/20/2013 7:44:18 PM]

Download 17291.pdf