Court Opinion

ID: 3106529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 06:06:08.777197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:35:50.247766
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                               SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                    FORT WORTH

                                  NO. 02-11-00432-CR

Albino Perez Salas                        §   From County Criminal Court No. 6

                                          §   of Tarrant County (1240578)

v.                                        §   January 17, 2013

                                          §   Per Curiam

The State of Texas                        §   (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

                                       PER CURIAM
                         COURT OF APPEALS
                         SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                              FORT WORTH

                              NO. 02-11-00432-CR

ALBINO PEREZ SALAS                                                  APPELLANT

                                        V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                        STATE

                                     ----------

      FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 6 OF TARRANT COUNTY

                                     ----------

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION1

                                     ----------

      Appellant Albino Perez Salas was convicted following a jury trial and

sentenced to six months’ incarceration for the misdemeanor offense of indecent

exposure. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.08(a) (West 2011).

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

                                         2
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.). This court gave Appellant

the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, but he did not do so. The State

did not file a brief.

       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, we

are obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if

there is any arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf. See Stafford, 813
S.W.2d at 511; Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923. 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 arguably might support any appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d
763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Accordingly, we grant the motion to withdraw

and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                         3
                                         PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

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

DELIVERED: January 17, 2013

                                 4