COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00623-CR

MICHAEL WAYNE SHERROD, JR. APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Michael Wayne Sherrod, Jr. appeals his first-degree felony 

conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.2

 We affirm.

A grand jury indicted appellant with committing aggravated robbery. The 

first count of the indictment alleged that while in the course of committing theft 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2), (b) (West 2011).
2

and with the intent to obtain or maintain control of property, appellant placed a 

victim in fear of imminent bodily injury or death by using a firearm. The trial court 

appointed counsel for appellant, and in April 2012, appellant rejected a pleabargain offer of thirty years’ confinement.

In May 2012, appellant entered an open guilty plea while receiving written 

admonishments about the effects of doing so, waiving constitutional and statutory 

rights, and judicially confessing. After continuing the case for the preparation of 

a presentence investigation report, the trial court found appellant guilty and 

sentenced him to twenty-five years’ confinement. Appellant brought this appeal.

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

withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the motion and in 

the brief, counsel avers that after a thorough examination of the record, he can 

find no nonfrivolous issue to present. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the 

requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of 

the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386 

U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 

403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (analyzing the effect of 

Anders). Appellant expressed his desire to file a pro se response to the Anders

brief, and although we gave him an opportunity to do so, he did not. The State 

has not filed 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, we 
3

must independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 

511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Alexander v. State, 301 S.W.3d 361, 363 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.). 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 record3 and counsel’s brief. We agree with 

counsel that the 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.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED: October 31, 2013

 3

As part of his plea, appellant waived the attendance of a court reporter at 

the trial court’s proceedings. The trial court’s court reporter informed us that 

there was no reporter’s record taken in connection with appellant’s case, so our 

review of the record comprised the clerk’s record and a presentence investigation 

report. The clerk’s record does not contain any motions filed by appellant.