## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 17 - 00109 - CR

STEPHEN DAVIS APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 6TH DISTRICT COURT O F DENTON COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. F15

- 2152

- 16

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Stephen Davis appeals his convicti on and his twenty

- five

- year senten ce for intoxication assault. 2 We affirm. A grand jury indicted Davis for intoxication assault. The indictment alleged that while operating a car in a public place while intoxicated, he had crashed into

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

2 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.07(a) (West 2011 ).2

a woman’s car and had caus ed her serious bodily injury. For sentence

enhancement purposes, the indictment also alleged that he had two prior felony convictions. At a jury trial, Davis pleaded not guilty. After considering the parties’ evidence and argument s, the jury fo und him guilty. The jury also found that he had used a deadly weapon

— the car

— while committing the offense. After hearing more evidence and arguments concerning Davis’s punishment, the jury assessed twenty

- five years’ confinement. 3 The trial court senten ced him accordingly, and he brought this appeal. Davis’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief under Anders v. California , representing that “any appeal . . . would be wholly frivolous. ” 386 U.S. 738, 744

– 45, 87 S. Ct. 1 396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’ s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id. ; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406

– 12 (Tex. Crim. App.

3 Davis pleaded tr ue to the indictment’s sentence

- enhancement allegations

. His pleas of true, standing alone, were sufficient to support the enhancement of his sentencing range. See Wilson v. State , 671 S.W.2d 524, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) ; see also Ex parte Rich , 194 S .W.3d 508, 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (reciting the general rule “ that a plea of true to an enhancement paragraph relieves the State of its burden to prove a prior conviction alleged for enhancement and forfeits the defendant ’ s right to appeal the insuffic iency of evidence to prove the prior conviction ”). With Davis’s two prior felony convictions, t he minimum sentence in the enhanced range was twenty

- five years , which is the punishment that the jury assessed

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (West Supp . 2017 ).3

2008) (orig. proceeding) (analyzing the effect of Ander s ). We gave Davis an opportunity to fi le a pro se response to counsel’ s brief, and he did so. The State has not filed a brief. Once an appellant's court

- appointed attorney files a motion to wit hdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , we must independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Only then may we grant counsel’ s motion to withdraw. Se e Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel ’ s brief, and Davis’s pro se response. We agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record tha t 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 with draw and affirm the trial cour t’ s judgment.

/s/ Wade Birdwell WADE BIRDWELL JUSTICE PANEL: KERR, PITTMAN, and BIRDWELL, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: April 12, 2018