Summary
This document is Mario Lopez Jucup’s pro se Petition for Discretionary Review to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in CCA No. PD-1623-14, arising from a Dallas Court of Appeals decision affirming his conviction. The petition challenges Anders appellate procedures, the waiver of counsel and jury trial, the trial court’s handling of appointed counsel, and the calculation of back-time credit. It asks the Court of Criminal Appeals to grant review and clarify the duties of counsel and appellate courts in Anders appeals.
Holdings
- After independently reviewing the Anders brief, the appellant's pro se response, and the record, the court found nothing that might arguably support the appeal and concluded that the appeal was frivolous and without merit.
- The court modified the judgment to state that sex-offender-registration requirements apply to Jucup and that the victim was ten years old.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Anders brief adequately demonstrated that the appeal was wholly frivolous and without merit.
- Whether the record contained any arguable ground for appeal.
- Whether the appellate court could modify the judgment to correct the sex-offender-registration designation and the victim's age.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (6)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)(followed)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-12 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)(followed)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)(followed)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)(followed)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)(followed)
- Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…