Clifford Carl Mitchell, Appellant v. The State of Texas, State (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

Appellant Clifford Carl Mitchell appeals from a conviction for the unlawful possession of a firearm.  Mitchell pleaded guilty to the State's charge.  A jury found the State's alleged enhancement and habitual-offender paragraphs to be true, and assessed punishment at sixty years' confinement.  The trial court entered judgment accordingly, and this appeal followed.

Mitchell's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  In his motion, counsel avers that he has conducted a professional evaluation of the record and, after a thorough review of the applicable law, has reached the conclusion that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced to support an appeal and that 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 reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might arguably support the appeal.  See 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967);  see also Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).  Mitchell declined the opportunity to file a pro se brief on his own behalf.  The State also did not file 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, 904 S.W.2d at 922–23.  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 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);  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

1.   See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.

BILL MEIER, JUSTICE