Court Opinion

ID: 2850578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-03 22:36:18.523519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:36:55.626393
License: Public Domain

SANCHEZ v. STATE

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-04-211-CR

RAUL IGNACIO SANCHEZ	APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(footnote: 1)

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

Appellant Raul Ignacio Sanchez appeals from a conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon committed on July 11, 2002.  A jury convicted Appellant and assessed his punishment at twelve years’ confinement.  The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly.  We will affirm. 

Anders
 Review

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  In his motion, counsel avers that he has conducted a professional evaluation of the record and after a thorough review of the applicable law has reached the conclusion that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced to support an appeal of this cause, and that the appeal is frivolous.  In his brief, counsel has reviewed the history of the case, including detailing the evidence presented.  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 reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might arguably support the appeal.  
See Mays v. State
, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922-23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).  Appellant has also filed a pro se brief on his own behalf raising two points challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. 

In our duties as a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous.  
See Stafford v. State
, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); 
Mays
, 904 S.W.2d at 923.  Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.  
See Penson v. Ohio
, 488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and the brief filed by Appellant pro se.  We agree the 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  Therefore, we grant the motion to withdraw filed by Appellant’s counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

PER CURIAM

PANEL F:  HOLMAN, LIVINGSTON, and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P.
 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  March 2, 2006

FOOTNOTES
1:See
 
Tex. R. App. P.
 47.4.