Court Opinion

ID: 3109124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 06:34:55.551015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:33:49.434292
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                         SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                              FORT WORTH

                              NO. 02-11-00183-CR

TODD CHRISTOPHER SWEENEY                                            APPELLANT

                                        V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                       STATE

                                     ----------

          FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

                                     ----------

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION1

                                     ----------

      After a jury found Appellant Todd Christopher Sweeney guilty of causing

bodily injury to an elderly person, Appellant pled “true” to habitual offender

enhancement paragraphs in the indictment, the trial court sentenced him to thirty

years’ confinement, and he filed a notice of appeal. We affirm.

      1
       See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
       Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to

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

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

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 has not

filed a brief.

       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

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

                                         2
PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH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

DELIVERED: October 11, 2012

                                  3