Court Opinion

ID: 3101757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:15:58.010226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:43.838822
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                         SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                              FORT WORTH

                             NO. 02-12-00506-CR

TRINA BISHOP                                                        APPELLANT

                                        V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                        STATE

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

          FROM THE 211TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

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

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION1
                                    ------------

      Appellant Trina Bishop appeals her conviction for state-jail felony theft

upon the revocation of her deferred adjudication community supervision.

      Bishop’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 by presenting a professional evaluation

of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386

      1
       See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Bishop had the opportunity to file a pro se brief

but did not do so; the State has not filed 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. 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.

                                                      BOB MCCOY
                                                      JUSTICE

PANEL: MCCOY, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH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

DELIVERED: June 20, 2013

                                           2