Court Opinion

ID: 2856938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-04 19:22:05.537271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:54.472305
License: Public Domain

COURT
OF APPEALS
                                       SECOND
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                                   FORT
WORTH
 
 
                                        NO.
2-07-271-CR
 
 
BILLY J. SWANSON                                                             APPELLANT
 
                                                   V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                                STATE
 
                                              ------------
 
           FROM THE 213TH
DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
 
                                              ------------
 
                                MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]
 
                                              ------------
A jury convicted Appellant Billy J. Swanson of
delivery of less than one gram of cocaine and, after Swanson pleaded true to
the enhancement paragraphs contained in the indictment, assessed punishment at
eight and a half years= confinement.  The trial court sentenced him
accordingly.  

Swanson=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[2]
by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds for relief. 
Swanson has filed a pro se brief in which he enumerates six potential
sources of error.  In addition, the State
has filed a letter brief.
As the 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 v.
State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 1995,
no pet.).  Only then may we grant counsel=s motion to
withdraw.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 82B83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). 
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel=s brief,
Swanson=s pro se
brief, and the State=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).  We therefore
grant the motion to withdraw filed by Swanson=s
counsel and affirm the trial court=s
judgment.
 
SUE
WALKER
JUSTICE

PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.;
LIVINGSTON and WALKER, JJ.
 
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
 
DELIVERED: February 19,
2009

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

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