Court Opinion

ID: 3095889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 04:34:25.763053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:20:08.380483
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                         SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                              FORT WORTH

                             NO. 02-12-00383-CR

KERRI IRENE DANZ                                                   APPELLANT

                                       V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                      STATE

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

      FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 1 OF DENTON COUNTY

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

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

      Appellant Kerri Irene Danz appeals the trial court’s revocation of her

community supervision.

      Danz’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 professional evaluation

of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386

      1
      See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Danz 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.

                                                      PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH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

DELIVERED: December 27, 2013

                                           2