Court Opinion

ID: 3105297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:45:47.791597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:35:58.425324
License: Public Domain

02-12-047-CR

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
 

 
 
NO. 02-12-00047-CR
 
 

Shawn
  Wayne Ross
 
 
 
v.
 
 
 
The
  State of Texas

§
 
§
 
§
 
§
 
§

From Criminal District
  Court No. 3
 
of
  Tarrant County (1249242D)
 
February
  28, 2013
 
Opinion
  by Justice Meier
 
(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 
 
 
 
By_________________________________
   
Justice Bill Meier
 
 
 
 
 

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
 

 
 
NO. 02-12-00047-CR
 
 

Shawn Wayne Ross

 

APPELLANT

 
V.
 

The State of Texas

 

STATE

 
 
----------
FROM Criminal
District Court No. 3 OF Tarrant
COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM
OPINION[1]
----------
          Appellant
Shawn Wayne Ross entered an open plea of guilty to possession of one gram or
more but less than four grams of methamphetamine.  See Tex. Health &
Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(c) (West 2010).  The trial court found Ross
guilty, accepted his plea of true to the indictment’s enhancement paragraph,
ordered and reviewed a presentence investigation report, and conducted a
sentencing hearing.  The trial court sentenced Ross to four years’ confinement.
Ross’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 avers that, in his
professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous.  Counsel’s brief and motion
meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for appeal.  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.).  Ross filed a pro se
brief in response, the State filed a reply brief, and Ross filed a rebuttal
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, 813 S.W.2d at 511; Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 922–23. 
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. 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.
 
 
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
 
PANEL: 
MCCOY, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
 
DO
NOT PUBLISH
Tex.
R. App. P. 47.2(b)
 
DELIVERED:  February 28, 2013

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