Court Opinion

ID: 2851191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-04 14:58:20.810924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:33:39.645663
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-07-021-CR

DEDRICH J. FLINT	APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(footnote: 1)

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

Dedrich J. Flint appeals from his conviction for possession of child pornography.  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 avers that, in his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous.  Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of 
Anders v. California
(footnote: 2) by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.  Appellant has also filed a pro se brief, in which he complains that the trial court improperly failed to orally admonish him, before accepting his open guilty plea, that he would be required to register as a sex offender.
(footnote: 3)
	Once an appellant’s court-appointed counsel 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.
(footnote: 4)  Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
(footnote: 5)  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.
(footnote: 6) 

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief, appellant’s pro se brief, and the record.  We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might support the appeal.
(footnote: 7)  Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.	

PER CURIAM

PANEL F:  CAYCE, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and HOLMAN, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH	

Tex. R. App. P.
 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  October 25, 2007	
 

FOOTNOTES
1:See
 
Tex. R. App. P.
 47.4.

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

3:Appellant concedes that the record contains written admonishments.  
See
 
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.
 art. 26.13(d) (Vernon Supp. 2006) (providing that the trial court may make the admonishments either orally or in writing).

4: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.).

5:See Penson v. Ohio,
 488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). 

6:See Monreal v. State,
 99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); 
Young v. State,
 8 S.W.3d 656, 666-67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

7:See Bledsoe v. State,
 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); 
accord Meza v. State, 
206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).