Court Opinion

ID: 2852950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-04 16:48:09.864185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:33:54.090286
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                          SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                               FORT WORTH

                               NO. 2-07-364-CR

MANUEL R. MURILLO                                                  APPELLANT

                                        V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                     STATE

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

           FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

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

      Appellant Manuel R. Murillo entered an open plea of guilty to two counts

of indecency with a child by contact and elected to have the jury assess

punishment. The jury assessed punishment at two years’ confinement on the

first count and four years’ community supervision on the second count. The

trial court sentenced Murillo in accordance with the jury’s verdict.

      1
          … See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
      Murillo’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. Murillo was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did not do

so.

      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.—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). Because

Murillo entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential error

is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Murillo’s plea,

error that is not independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error

occurring after entry of the guilty plea. See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615,

620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666–67 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2000).

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

                                         2
     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); accord Meza v.

State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We therefore grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                               SUE WALKER
                                               JUSTICE

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, HOLMAN, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH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

DELIVERED: October 16, 2008

                                     3