Frendale Antonio Anderson, Appellant v. The State of Texas, State (2015)

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

Appellant Frendale Antonio Anderson pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation and true to a repeat offender allegation, and a jury sentenced him to twenty-five years' confinement.

Anderson's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion.   Counsel avers that in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous.   Counsel's brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.  See 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967).   This court informed Anderson that he may file a pro se brief, and he did so.   The State did not submit a brief.

Once an appellant's court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record.   See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App.1991);  Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (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, 8283, 109 S.Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and Anderson's pro se 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);  see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex.Crim.App.2006).   Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment.

FOOTNOTES

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

BILL MEIER, JUSTICE