## COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00436

- CR

Devaughn Dejon Bryant

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From t he 432nd District Court

o f Tarrant County ( 1201128D )

January 24, 2013

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM2 

## COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00436

- CR

DEVAUGHN DEJON BRYAN T APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------


### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

----------
Appell ant Devaughn Dejon Bryant pled guilty to t wo counts of aggravated

robbery with a deadly weapon. The jury convicted him and assessed his

punishment at sixty years’ confinement on each count. The trial court sentenced

Appellant accordingly, ordering that t he sentences run concurrently, and found that

he had used or exhibited a deadly weapon in the two robberies.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.3

Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel

and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel avers t hat, in his

professional opinion, these appeals are frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet

the requirements of Anders v. California 2 by presenting a professional evaluation of

the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 3 Ap pellant

filed a pro se response to the Anders brief ; the State declined to file a brief.

After an appellant’s court

- appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the

ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , this court

i s obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if there is

any arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf. 4 Only then may we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw. 5

Because Appellant entered an open plea of guilty, our indepen dent review for

potential error is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of his

plea, error that is not independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error

occurring after entry of the guilty plea. 6

2 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

3 See Staf

ford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510

– 11 & n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

4 See id. at 511.

5 See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

6 See Monreal v. State , 99 S.W.3d 615, 619

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)

, Young v. State , 8 S.W.3d 656, 666

– 67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)

.4

We have carefully revie wed counsel’s brief and the appellate record. We

agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find

nothing in the appellate record that arguably might support th is appeal. 7

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdr aw and affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GARDNER, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )

DELIVERED: January 24, 2013

7 See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).