COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00307-CR

Oscar Trevino

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 213th District Court

of Tarrant County (1170071D)

January 10, 2013

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the 

trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
2

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00305-CR

NO. 02-11-00306-CR

NO. 02-11-00307-CR

NO. 02-11-00308-CR

OSCAR TREVINO APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Oscar Trevino pled guilty to three counts of burglary of a habitation 

and one count of aggravated robbery, all containing a repeat offender allegation. 

The trial court sentenced him to twenty years’ confinement for the aggravated 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
3

robbery conviction and to fifteen years’ confinement for each burglary conviction, 

with all sentences to be served concurrently.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel 

and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel avers that, in his 

professional opinion, these appeals are frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet 

the requirements of Anders v. California2by presenting a professional evaluation of 

the records demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.3 Although 

provided the opportunity, Appellant did not file a pro se response to the Anders brief, 

and the State likewise declined to file a brief.

After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the 

ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court 

is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if there is 

any arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf.4 Only then may we grant 

counsel’s motion to withdraw.5

Because Appellant entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for 

potential error is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of his 

 

2

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

3See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510–11 & n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

4See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

5See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).
4

plea in each case, error that is not independent of and supports the judgment of guilt

in each, and error occurring after entry of each guilty plea.6

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the appellate records. We 

agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find 

nothing in the appellate records that arguably might support these appeals.

7

 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s 

judgments.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED: January 10, 2013

 

6See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

7See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).