Court Opinion

ID: 3130990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 16:57:08.707307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:41.853898
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                          SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                               FORT WORTH

                               NO. 2-09-019-CR

MARIO MATA JR.                                                     APPELLANT

                                        V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                       STATE

                                    ------------

           FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

                                    ------------

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

                                    ------------

      Appellant Mario Mata, Jr. entered an open plea of true to four alleged

violations of his deferred adjudication community supervision for possession of

cocaine. He appeals his resulting sentence of five years’ confinement. We

affirm.

      Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel

      1
           See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
avers that, in her professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief

and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Appellant declined

to file a pro se brief, and the State declined to file a brief.

      Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw

on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of

Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the

record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);

Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no

pet.). 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 wholly frivolous and without merit; we find

nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v.

                                         2
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 withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                               PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: January 14, 2010

                                     3