Court Opinion

ID: 3094890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 04:24:56.947525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:39.762527
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                            SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                 FORT WORTH

                                NO. 02-12-00352-CR

JOE NATHAN HAYWOOD, JR. A/K/A                                      APPELLANT
JOE HAYWOOD

                                          V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                      STATE

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

      FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION1
                                      ------------

      Appellant Joe Nathan Haywood, Jr. a/k/a Joe Haywood pleaded guilty to

and was convicted of aggravated assault against a public servant, a first-degree

felony.

      Haywood’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and

motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a
      1
          See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).            Haywood had the

opportunity to file a pro se brief but did not do so; the State has not filed 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 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. 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 judgment.

                                                      /s/ Bob McCoy

                                                      BOB MCCOY
                                                      JUSTICE

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH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

DELIVERED: January 30, 2014

                                           2