## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 18

- 00034

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1519428R

Before Walker, Gabriel, and Birdwell, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell 

### C HAD 

### A. I SAACS 

### , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Chad A. Isaacs appeals his conviction and his twenty

- five year
sentence for theft. 1 Isaacs pleaded guilty without entering into a plea bargain. At the time of the plea, he affirmed his competency to stand trial, averred that he was satisfied with his counsel’s representation, received admonishments about the effects of the plea, waived constitutional and statutory rights, and e ntered a judicial
confessio n. The trial court found him guilty, received evidence concerning his punishment, and sentenced him to tw enty

- five years’ confinement. He brought this appeal.
Issacs’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief
under Anders v. California , representing that counsel can “find no errors warranting reversal that can be legitimately supported by the record.” 386 U.S. 738, 744

– 45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 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. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (analyzing the effect of Anders ). In compliance
with Kelly v. St

ate , counsel notified Issacs of the motion to withdraw, provided him a copy of the Anders brief, informed him of his right to file a pro se response, informed

1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a) (West Supp. 201 8 ). The State charged Isaacs with theft of over $200,000, which was a first

- degree felony at the time of his offense. See Martinez v. State , 527 S.W.3d 310, 316 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2017, pet. ref’d)

.3

him of his right to seek discretionary review should this court hold that the appeal is
frivolous , and took concrete measures to facilitate his review of the appellate
record. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

. We gave Isaacs an opportunity to file a pro se response to counsel’s brief, but
he did not . The State did not file a brief.
Once a n appellant’s court

- appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw 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. See Penson v.
Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is 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 withdr aw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. /s/ Wade Birdwell Wade Birdwell Justice
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: October 4, 2018