## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 14 - 00330 - CR NO. 02 - 14 - 00331 - CR NO. 02 - 14 - 00332 - CR
MCKENDRICK PATTON, I II APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 297TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL C OURT NO. 1288658D, 1 164893D, 1162203D

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- In July 2012, Appellant was found guilty of aggravated robbery in cause no. 02
- 14
- 00331
- CR , and the trial court sentenced him to ten years incarceration, suspended the sentence , and placed him on community supervision for ten years , based on a jury’s verdict . Also in July 2012, the trial court accepted

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 Appellant’s pleas of guilty and placed Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years in another aggrav ated robbery case (cause no. 02
- 14
- 00332
- CR) and for ten years in a bail
- jumping case (cause no. 02
- 14
- 00330
- CR) , to run concurrently. In July 2014, the State filed a petition to revoke community supervision and two petitions to proceed to adjudication. At the hearing on the petition s , Appellant entered open pleas of true to six of the State’s allegations. After hearing testimony from Appellant’s probation officer and Appellant’s mother, the trial court found that Appellant had violated the terms and co nditions of his community supervision as alleged in four paragraphs of the State’s petitions . It adjudicated Appellant guilty of aggravated robbery and bail
- jumping, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to thirty
- year, ten
- year, and ten
- ye ar sentences respectively, with all sentences to run concurrently. This appeal followed. Appellan t’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, t he 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). A ppellant filed a pro se response

. 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 , this3 court is obligated to und ertake 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.). When performing this evaluation, we consider the record, the a rguments raised in the Anders brief, and any issues Appellant raises in his pro se response
. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). 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 counsel’s brief , Appellant’s response, and the appellate record

. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arg uably 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 judgmen t s
.
/s/ Lee Gabriel LEE GABRIEL JUSTICE PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: August 25, 2015