Court Opinion

ID: 3113699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 07:17:59.426536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:34:14.699487
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                         SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                              FORT WORTH

                             NO. 02-11-00259-CR

KATRINA MONIAC                                                     APPELLANT
MATTHEWS

                                       V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                      STATE

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

          FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

      Appellant Katrina Moniac Matthews appeals the trial court’s judgment

adjudicating her guilt of credit card abuse and sentencing her to two years’

confinement after revoking her deferred adjudication community supervision.

Matthews’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
      1
      See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386
U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Matthews had the opportunity to file a pro se

brief, but she has not done so.

      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, 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 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, 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

PANEL: MCCOY, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH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

DELIVERED: March 22, 2012

                                         2