Court Opinion

ID: 3101358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:11:55.498994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:29:29.646764
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                          SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                               FORT WORTH

                               NO. 02-11-00493-CR

CLARENCE WAYNE SNODGRASS                                                 APPELLANT

                                         V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                          STATE

                                      ----------

          FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

                                      ----------

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

                                      ----------

      Appellant Clarence Wayne Snodgrass appeals the sentence the trial court

imposed after adjudicating him guilty of injury to a child. We affirm.

      Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel, accompanied by a brief in support of that motion. Counsel

states in the brief that in his professional opinion this appeal is frivolous and

      1
       See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
without merit. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for

relief. Appellant filed a pro se response to the Anders brief. The State did not

file a response.

      Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on

the grounds that an 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, counsel’s brief, and Appellant’s

response to 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. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App.

2009).

                                         2
                                      PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH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

DELIVERED: July 11, 2013

                              3