## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT W ORTH
NO. 02
- 11
- 00307
- CR

Oscar Trevino

v.

The State of Texas § § § § § From t he 213th District Court

o f Tarrant County ( 1170071D ) January 10, 2013

P er C uriam (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 CURIAM2 

## 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 OPINION 1

---------- 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’ con finement for the aggravated

1 See 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 suppor t of that motion. In the brief, counsel avers that, in his professional opinion, these appeal s are frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California 2 by presenting a professional evaluation of

the record s demonstrating w hy 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 m ay 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).

3 See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510

– 11 & n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

4 See Stafford

, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

5 See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).4

plea in each case , error that is not independen t 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 record s

. We agree with counsel that th e s e appeal s are wholly frivolous and without merit; w e find nothing in the appellate record s that arguably might support th ese appeal s

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

.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. Ap p

. P. 47.2(b )

DELIVERED: January 10, 2013

6 See Monreal v. State , 99 S.W.3d 6 15, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

7 See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).