Court Opinion

ID: 3115981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 07:37:38.157769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:32:45.657590
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                         SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                              FORT WORTH

                             NO. 02-11-00007-CR

JAMES WAYNE RENO                                                   APPELLANT

                                       V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                      STATE

                                    ----------

          FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

                                    ----------

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION1

                                    ----------

      After Appellant James Wayne Reno entered a plea of guilty to the charge

of forgery and pleaded true to an enhancement paragraph, a jury assessed his

punishment at two years’ confinement.            The trial court sentenced him

accordingly.

      Reno’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

      1
       See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
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 Reno an opportunity to file a pro se

brief. Reno responded with a letter stating that he wished this court would ―let

this case die.‖ The State did not file a brief in this case.

      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).

                                           2
      Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial

court’s judgment.

                                               BILL MEIER
                                               JUSTICE

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH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

DELIVERED: December 8, 2011

                                     3