Court Opinion

ID: 3130991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 16:57:09.451742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:48:41.786355
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                                       SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                                   FORT WORTH
 
 
                                        NO.
2-09-019-CR
 
 
MARIO MATA JR.                                                               APPELLANT
 
                                                   V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                                STATE
 
                                              ------------
 
           FROM
THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
 
                                              ------------
 
                                MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]
 
                                              ------------
Appellant
Mario Mata, Jr. entered an open plea of true to four alleged violations of his
deferred adjudication community supervision for possession of cocaine.  He appeals his resulting sentence of five
years=
confinement.  We affirm.   

Appellant=s
court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and
a brief in support of that motion.  In
the brief, counsel avers that, in her professional opinion, the appeal is
frivolous.  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 U.S. 738, 87 S.
Ct. 1396 (1967).  Appellant declined to
file a pro se brief, and the State declined to file 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, 922B23 (Tex.
App.CFort
Worth 1995, no pet.).  Only then may we
grant counsel=s motion to withdraw.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82B83, 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, 827B28 (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:  LIVINGSTON, GARDNER, and
WALKER, JJ.
 
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
 
DELIVERED:  January 14, 2010

[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.