## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 18

- 00139

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 396th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1522957D
Before Bassel, Kerr, and Pittman, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### W ILLIAM 

### B URKHART 

### J R 

### ., Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEM ORANDUM OPINION Appellant William Burkhart Jr. appeals from his conviction for evading arrest or detention with a vehicle. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(b)(2)(A) (West 2016 ). We affirm. A grand jury indicted Burkhart for evading arrest or detention wi th a vehicle

. The indictment included a deadly

- weapon

- finding notice and a repeat

- offender notice alleging that Burkhart had previously been convicted of evading arrest or detention in January 2009

. Burkhart waived his right to a jury at both the guilt

- i nnocence and punishment phases, and he pleaded guilty to the offense charged in the indictment without the benefit of a plea

- bargain agreement

. Burkhart also pl eaded “ true ” to the deadly

- weapon

- finding notice and the repeat

- offender no tice. The trial cou rt accepted Burkhart’s guilty plea and pleas of “true” to the notices and ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report (PSI)

. A fter the PSI was prepared,
the trial court held a punishment hearing at which Burkhart called two witnesses to testify and took the stand himself

. After reviewing the PSI and hearing testimony and closing arguments, the trial court sentenced Burkhart to five years’ confinement.
Burkhart ’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396 , 1400 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State , counsel notified3 Burkhart of his motion to withdraw, provided him a copy of the brief, informed him of his right to file a pro se response, informed him of his pro se right to seek discretionary r eview should this court hold the appeal is frivolous, and took concrete
measures to facilitate Burkhart ’s review of the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Burkhart had the opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders brief and has done so . 1 The State submitted a letter stating that it would not be filing a brief. As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is
fr ivolous. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v.
State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, 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 record , counsel’s brief , and Burkhart’s pro se response s . We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might support an appeal. S ee Bledsoe

1 Initially, we construed Burkhart’s pro se August 21, 2018 letter as a response to the Anders brief. Burkhart later filed a “Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellate Brief,” and we allowed him to file a supplemental pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief.4 v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Per Curiam Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: February 7, 2019