Court Opinion

ID: 2856407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-04 19:03:35.176175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:08.864719
License: Public Domain

COURT
OF APPEALS
                                       SECOND
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                                   FORT
WORTH
 
 
                                        NO.
 2-08-172-CR
 
 
JOHN THOMAS CRAWFORD                                                 APPELLANT
 
                                                   V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                                STATE
 
                                              ------------
 
           FROM THE 297TH
DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
 
                                              ------------
 
                                MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]
 
                                              ------------
Appellant John Thomas Crawford pleaded guilty to
possession of one gram or more but less than four grams of
methamphetamine.  A jury assessed
punishment of seven years= confinement, and the trial
court sentenced Appellant accordingly.

Appellant=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[2]
by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds for relief. 
Appellant was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did
not do so.
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.CFort
Worth 1995, no pet.).  Only then may we
grant counsel=s motion to withdraw.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82B83, 109
S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).  Because
Appellant entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential
error is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of
Appellant=s plea, error that is not
independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error occurring after
entry of the guilty plea.  See Monreal
v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Young v. State,
8 S.W.3d 656, 666B67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s
brief.  We agree with counsel that this
appeal is wholly 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, 827B28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); accord
Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).  We therefore grant counsel=s motion
to withdraw and affirm the trial court=s
judgment.
 
PER
CURIAM
 
PANEL: GARDNER, J.;
CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.
 
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
 
DELIVERED:  April 30, 2009

[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

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