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

WILLIAM BURKHART JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM 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 with 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-innocence and 

punishment phases, and he pleaded guilty to the offense charged in the indictment 

without the benefit of a plea-bargain agreement. Burkhart also pleaded “true” to the 

deadly-weapon-finding notice and the repeat-offender notice. The trial court 

accepted Burkhart’s guilty plea and pleas of “true” to the notices and ordered the 

preparation of a presentence investigation report (PSI). After 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 notified 
3

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 review 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 

frivolous. 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 

responses. 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. See 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