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, III APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1288658D, 1164893D, 1162203D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

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 aggravated 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 petitions, 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 conditions 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-year sentences respectively, with all 

sentences to run concurrently. This appeal followed.

Appellant’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). Appellant 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, this 
3

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.). When 

performing this evaluation, we consider the record, the arguments 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 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 

judgments.

/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