Opinion
NO. 02-13-00551-CR
11-06-2014
BRAD GUINN ALLEN APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. CR12016
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Brad Guinn Allen appeals his conviction for state-jail felony delivery of marijuana upon the revocation of his deferred-adjudication community supervision. We affirm.
Allen'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). Allen had the opportunity to file a pro se brief but did not do so; the State has not filed 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, 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PER CURIAM PANEL: MCCOY, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J. DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: November 6, 2014
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.