Court Opinion

ID: 2856127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-04 18:56:54.819972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:34:16.992953
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                                                 SECOND
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                                                FORT
WORTH
 
 
                                        NO.
2-08-166-CR
 
 
CESAR
LABRADA                                                                APPELLANT
 
                                                   V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                                STATE
 
                                              ------------
 
            FROM THE 362ND
DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY
 
                                              ------------
 
                                MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]
 
                                              ------------
A jury convicted Appellant Cesar Labrada of
indecency with a child and assessed his punishment at four years=
confinement.  The trial court sentenced
him accordingly.

Labrada=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 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396

(1967).  We gave Labrada an opportunity
to file a pro se brief, but he did not file one.
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:  MEIER, LIVINGSTON, and DAUPHINOT, JJ.
 
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
 
DELIVERED:  June 18, 2009

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