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

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00431

- CR

_________________ __ ____ ____

On Appeal from the 371st District Court Tarran t Coun ty, Tex a s Trial Court No. 1589641D

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Ba ssel , J J

. Memorandum Opinion by Just ice Bassel 

### J U STIN 

### G LENN 

### A LCOCER 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANUDM OPINION A jury found Appellant Justin Gle nn A l co c er guilty of assault

– family violence with a prior conviction. See Te x. Penal Code Ann. § 2 2.01 (a), ( b )(2)( A) (setting fort h
the crime of assault

– family violence and st ating that it is a third

- degree felony)

. The
trial court senten ced Appellant to fourteen years ’ confinement after he pleaded true to
the repeat

- o ffender notice s i n the indictment

. See id. § § 12.33 , 12.42(a)

. Appellant ’ s court

- appoi nted counsel has filed a motion to wit h draw as co unsel
and a n am ended brief in support of that motion. In the a mended brief, counsel avers
that , in h is profession al opinion, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel ’ s amended brief and motion meet the requiremen ts of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 73 8, 7 44

– 45, 87 S. Ct.
139 6 , 14 0 0 (19 67), by presenting a professional evaluation of the appellate record
d em onstrating wh y th ere are no arguable grounds for relief. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510

– 11 & n.3 (Te x. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance w ith Kelly v. State , coun s el ( 1 ) not ified Appellant of counsel ’ s motion to withdr aw; (2) provided Appellan t a copy of both th e motion and amended brief; (3) informed him of his right to file a pro se response; (4) info rmed him of his
pro se r ight to seek di scre tionary review should this court hold the appea l fri volous; and (5) took concrete measures to facilit at e his review of t he appellate reco rd. Se e 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court afforded A pp ellant the
opport unity t o file a respo nse on his own behalf, and though he did not do so within3 the time allot ted , we co nstrue a letter he filed to be his brief

. 1 The State filed a letter stating that it would not be f i ling a brief. After an appellant ’ s court

- appointed c ounsel files a motion to withdraw on th e
gro und that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requiremen t s of A nders , this court is obligated to undertake an independent examina tion of t he record to se e i f ther e is any arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf. See Staff ord , 813 S.W.2d a t 511

. Only then may we grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. O hio , 488 U.S. 75,
82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).
We hav e caref ul ly reviewed cou ns el ’ s amended br ief , Appellant ’ s late

- filed brief, and the appellate record. W e agree w ith co unsel that this appeal is wholly
frivolous a nd without merit ; we find nothing in the appellate record th at arg uably might support this appeal. Se e Bledsoe v. Stat e , 17 8 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 200 5); see also Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

1 On July 13, 2021, we sent Ap pellant a letter stating that i f he wished to examine the record and file a pro se response, he needed to sign and date the motion for pro se access to the appellate recor d th at his attorney had pro vided and send it to
us within f ourteen days

. On Augus t 1 3, 2021, we received Ap pellant ’ s l etter dated August 8, 2021, stating tha t he does not know the law in order to be able to represent himself but that his a ppellate counsel was i ns ufficient and that he feels like h e “ got to [o] much time for a misdemeanor

. ”4 Ac cordingly, w e grant counsel ’ s mo tion to withdraw and affirm the trial co urt ’ s judgm en t
. /s/ Dabney Bassel Dabney Bassel Justice
D o Not Publish Te x. R. Ap p. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: October 7, 2021