COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00476-CR

Freddie Lee Pendley

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 371st District Court

of Tarrant County (0623361D)

January 17, 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 order. It is ordered that the order of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
2

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00476-CR

NO. 02-11-00477-CR

FREDDIE LEE PENDLEY APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Freddie Lee Pendley was convicted in 1998 of capital murder 

and attempted capital murder, and this court affirmed his convictions. See 

Pendley v. State, Nos. 02-98-00540-CR, 02-98-00541-CR (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth Jan. 6, 2000, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). In April 2010,

Appellant filed a motion for post conviction DNA testing in the trial court under 

 

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

chapter 64 of the code of criminal procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. 

art. 64.01 (West Supp. 2012). The trial court denied the motion by written order 

dated September 29, 2011. These appeals followed.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate 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. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 

S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and 

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for appeal. 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.). This court gave Appellant 

the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, and Appellant filed a pro se brief 

raising three issues. The State also filed a brief.

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

the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we 

are obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if 

there is any arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf. See Stafford, 813 

S.W.2d at 511; Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923. 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 record and the briefs filed by Appellant, his 

counsel, and the State. We agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly 
4

frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might 

support any appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005); see also Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2009). Accordingly, we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s 

orders denying DNA testing.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED: January 17, 2013