Court Opinion

ID: 2856443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-04 19:04:32.379573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:37.683252
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                         SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                              FORT WORTH

                             NOS. 2-08-156-CR
                                  2-08-157-CR
                                  2-08-158-CR

TRACI RENE CAHILL                                                APPELLANT

                                       V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                     STATE

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

          FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

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

     Appellant Traci Rene Cahill entered open pleas of guilty to three charges

of possessing a forged check with the intent to pass. See Tex. Penal Code

Ann. § 32.21(a), (d) (Vernon Supp. 2008). She appeals her convictions and

     1
         … See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
three twenty-month sentences, which the trial court ordered to be served

concurrently. 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, the appeals are 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). We gave appellant

the opportunity to file a pro se brief, which she did, alleging ineffective

assistance by her trial counsel. The State did not 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, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s

pro se 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

                                        2
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.

                                          TERRIE LIVINGSTON
                                          JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH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

DELIVERED: April 23, 2009

                                      3