Court Opinion

ID: 2856441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-04 19:04:22.945323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:31:03.561801
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                                                 SECOND
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                                                FORT
WORTH
 
 
       NOS.  2-08-156-CR
2-08-157-CR
2-08-158-CR
 
 
TRACI RENE CAHILL                                                            APPELLANT
 
                                                   V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                                STATE
 
                                              ------------
 
           FROM THE 371ST
DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
 
                                              ------------
 
                                MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]
 
                                              ------------

Appellant Traci Rene Cahill entered open pleas of
guilty to three charges of possessing a forged check with the intent to
pass.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. '
32.21(a), (d) (Vernon Supp. 2008).  She
appeals her convictions and three twenty-month sentences, which the trial court
ordered to be served concurrently.  We
affirm.
Appellant=s
court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and
a brief in support of that motion.  In
the brief, counsel avers that, in his professional opinion, the appeals are
frivolous.  Counsel=s brief
and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds for relief.  386 U.S. 738, 87 S.
Ct. 1396 (1967).  We gave appellant the
opportunity to file a pro se brief, which she did, alleging ineffective
assistance by her trial counsel.  The
State did not file 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, 922B23 (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,
and appellant=s pro se brief.  We agree with counsel that these appeals are
wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might
arguably support the appeals.  See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827B28 (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
judgments.
 
TERRIE
LIVINGSTON
JUSTICE
 
PANEL:  LIVINGSTON, MCCOY, and
MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED:  April 23, 2009

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