APPELLANT v. STATE FROM OF COUNTY 500 31 03 2003 364 (2011)

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

York'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 ² by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.   This court afforded York the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, and he has filed one.   The State has also 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).

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel's brief, York's pro se brief, and the State's brief.   We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit;  we find nothing in the record that arguably might support an appeal.   See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).   Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment.

PANEL:  WALKER, J.;   LIVINGSTON, C.J.;   and GABRIEL, J.

Tex.R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  January 6, 2011

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4..  FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.

FN2. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967)..  FN2. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967).