Court Opinion

ID: 2854662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-04 17:24:22.106668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:41.695794
License: Public Domain

COURT
OF APPEALS
                                       SECOND
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                                   FORT
WORTH
 
 
                                        NO.
 2-07-015-CR
 
 
STEVEN DWANE WASHINGTON                                            APPELLANT
 
                                                   V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                                STATE
 
                                              ------------
 
        FROM
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY
 
                                              ------------
 
                                MEMORANDUM
OPINION[1]
 
                                              ------------
Appellant Steven Dwane
Washington entered an open plea of guilty to the charge of driving while intoxicated,
felony repetition and pleaded Atrue@ to a
repeat-offender enhancement allegation recited in the indictment.  The trial court convicted Appellant, found
the repeat-offender allegation to be true, and sentenced him to nine years= confinement.  

Appellant=s court‑appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  In her brief, counsel has reviewed the
history of the case, including detailing the evidence presented.  Counsel=s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California[2]
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.[3]  Although this court gave Appellant the
opportunity to file a pro se brief, he did not file one.

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.[4]  Only then may we grant counsel=s motion to withdraw.[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.[6]       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 might
arguably support the appeal.[7]
Consequently, we grant the
motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court=s judgment. 
PER CURIAM
 
PANEL F:    GARDNER, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.
 
DO
NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
 
DELIVERED:  February 7, 2008

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

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

[3]See
Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922B23
(Tex. App.CFort
Worth 1995, no pet.).

[4]See
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays,
904 S.W.2d at 923.

[5]See
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83B84,
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, 666B67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

[7]See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).