Court Opinion

ID: 3101392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:12:17.920498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:27.065224
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                          SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                               FORT WORTH

                              NO. 02-11-00467-CR
                              NO. 02-11-00468-CR
                              NO. 02-11-00469-CR

ALLEN LEE POLK                                                        APPELLANT

                                         V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                          STATE

                                      ----------

          FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

                                      ----------

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

                                      ----------

      Appellant Allen Lee Polk appeals the judgments the trial court rendered

against him after it accepted his guilty pleas to three theft offenses under $1,500,

enhanced by prior convictions. We affirm.

      1
       See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
      Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to

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

brief, counsel states that in his professional opinion these appeals are frivolous

and without merit. 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 demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for

relief. We provided Appellant the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did not

do so. The State also did not file a brief.

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

the grounds that an 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 these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing

in the record that might arguably support the appeals. 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 judgments. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d
763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

                                          2
                                          PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH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

DELIVERED: July 3, 2013

                                3