## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-15-00435-CR NO. 02-15-00436-CR NO. 02-15-00437-CR

MICHAEL ALVIN LLO YD APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COUR T NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NOS. 140103 2D, 1404399D, 1404400D

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- In each case, Appellant Michael Alvi n Lloyd pled guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, and the tr ial court convicted him and sentenced him to sixteen years’ confinement, with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant timely appealed.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 Appellant’s court-appoin ted counsel has filed a mo tion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel avers that, in his professional opinion, thes e appeals are frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of each appellate record demonstrating why there ar e no arguable grounds for relief. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510–11 & n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with Kelly v. State , counsel (1) notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw; (2) provided him a copy of both the motion and brief; (3) informed him of his right to file a pro se response; (4) informed him of his pro se right to seek discretionary review shou ld this court hold th e appeals frivolous; and (5) took concrete measures to facilitate his review of the appellate record in each case. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2014). This court afforded Appellant the opportunity to file a response on his own behalf, but he did not do so. The State likewis e declined to file a brief. After an appellant’s court-appointed coun sel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is friv olous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , this court is obligated to undert ake 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. Only then may we gran t counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).3 Because Appellant entered open pleas of guilty, our independent review for potential error is limited to potential ju risdictional defects, the voluntariness of his pleas, error that is not independent of and supports the judgments of guilt, and error occurring after entry of the guilty pleas. See Monreal v. State , 99 S.W.3d 615, 619–20 (T ex. Crim. App. 2003); see also Faisst v. State , 98 S.W.3d 226, 227 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the appellate record in each case. We agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the ap pellate records that arguably might support these appeals. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 82 4, 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 withdraw, deny Appellant’s motion to appoint new counsel, and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

PER CURIAM PANEL: PITTMAN, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: March 30, 2017