Opinion
NO. 02-13-00311-CR
07-10-2014
PATRICK WOODROW CRAVEN APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1295892D
MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
A jury convicted Appellant Patrick Woodrow Craven of two counts of sexual assault of a child and assessed his punishment at ten years' confinement for one count and ten years' probation for the other, and the trial court sentenced him accordingly.
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(a)(2) (West 2011).
Craven's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. The 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. This court afforded Craven the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, but he did not do so. The State also did not file a brief.
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
--------
As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (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 arguably might support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment.
ANNE GARDNER
JUSTICE
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)