Opinion
NO. 02-15-00182-CR
05-26-2016
CALEB VALLEJO APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1384147D MEMORANDUM OPINION
In November 2014, the trial court placed Appellant Caleb Vallejo on three years' deferred-adjudication community supervision upon his plea of guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance of less than one gram, namely: methamphetamine. In April 2015, the State filed its amended petition to proceed to adjudication, alleging that Vallejo had violated several terms and conditions of his community supervision. After a hearing, the trial court found two of the State's allegations to be true, adjudicated Vallejo guilty, and sentenced him to two years in jail.
Vallejo's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel avers that in his 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 and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State, the record demonstrates that Vallejo was notified of counsel's motion to withdraw, provided a copy of the motion and brief, informed of his right to file a pro se response, informed of his right to seek discretionary review should this court hold the appeal is frivolous, and concrete measures were taken to facilitate Vallejo's review of the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court informed Vallejo multiple times that he may file a pro se brief, but he did not do so. The State did not submit 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, and 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). We grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial court's judgment.
/s/ Bill Meier
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: May 26, 2016
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.