Opinion
Nos. 02-08-161-CR, 02-08-162-CR
Delivered: April 30, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Appeal from the 371st District Court of Tarrant County.
PANEL: MEIER, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant Frederick D. Osborne appeals his convictions and sentences for aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 22.021(a)(2)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2008). We will 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). We gave appellant the opportunity to file a pro se brief, and he has not filed one. The State also 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 judgments.