Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
WILLIAM CHILTON ACORD APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Appellant William Chilton Acord entered an open plea of guilty to robbery causing bodily injury and pleaded true to the repeat offender notice. The trial court sentenced Acord to forty-five years' confinement.
Acord's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel's brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. Acord was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did not do so. The State has not filed a brief.
As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel's motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 351 (1988). Because Acord entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential error is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Acord's plea, error that is not independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error occurring after entry of the guilty plea. See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex.Crim.App.2003); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666-67 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex.Crim.App.2005); accord Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex.Crim.App.2006). We therefore grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Tex.R.App. P. 47.2(b)
FOOTNOTES
FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.. FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.
SUE WALKER JUSTICE
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: NO. 2-09-099-CR
Decided: January 28, 2010
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)