Court Opinion

ID: 2853317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-04 16:57:39.007492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:50.204936
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-06-389-CR

THOMAS MARTIN	APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(footnote: 1)

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

Thomas Martin appeals his conviction of sexual assault of a child. Martin’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  In his motion, counsel avers that he has conducted a professional evaluation of the record and, after a thorough review of the applicable law, has reached the conclusion that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced to support an appeal of this cause and that the appeal is frivolous.  Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of 
Anders 
by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might arguably support the appeal. 
 See Anders v. California
, 386 U.S. 738, 741, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); 
Mays v. State
, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922
–
23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).  Martin was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief on his own behalf, but he chose not to do so.

In our duties as a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous.  
See Stafford v. State
, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); 
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 appellate record and counsel’s brief.  We agree that the 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 
Therefore, we grant the motion to withdraw filed by Martin’s appellate counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED: August 21, 2008

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