From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Braziel v. State

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
Aug 7, 2014
NO. 02-13-00229-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 7, 2014)

Opinion

NO. 02-13-00226-CRNO. 02-13-00227-CRNO. 02-13-00228-CRNO. 02-13-00229-CRNO. 02-13-00230-CRNO. 02-13-00231-CRNO. 02-13-00232-CRNO. 02-13-00233-CRNO. 02-13-00234-CR

08-07-2014

KARRINGTON MCKINLEY BRAZIEL APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE


FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NOS. 1263396D, 1263688D, 1264759D, 1264760D, 1323799R, 1323801R, 1323802R, 1323804R, 1323806R MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Karrington McKinley Braziel made open pleas of guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and pleaded true to the repeat offender allegation in nine cases. A jury found him guilty and assessed his punishment at confinement for life in all of the cases, and his sentences were set to run concurrently.

Braziel'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). Braziel had the opportunity to file a pro se brief and has done 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, counsel's brief, and Braziel's pro se 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 alsoMeza 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, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 7, 2014

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.


Summaries of

Braziel v. State

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
Aug 7, 2014
NO. 02-13-00229-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 7, 2014)
Case details for

Braziel v. State

Case Details

Full title:KARRINGTON MCKINLEY BRAZIEL APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

Court:COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

Date published: Aug 7, 2014

Citations

NO. 02-13-00229-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 7, 2014)