Ford v. State

Full title: ROBERT AARON FORD APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

Court: COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

Date published: Feb 26, 2015

NO. 02-14-00058-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 26, 2015)

Opinion

NO. 02-14-00058-CR

02-26-2015

ROBERT AARON FORD APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

PER CURIAM

FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. CR12570
MEMORANDUM OPINION¹

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

Appellant Robert Aaron Ford pled guilty to continuous sexual abuse of a child, and the trial court sentenced him to fifty years' confinement. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant's court-appointed 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, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel's brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California² by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.³ Appellant declined to file a pro se response to the Anders brief, and the State likewise declined to file a brief.

2 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

3 See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510-11 & n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

After an appellant's court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if there is any arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf.⁴ Only then may we grant counsel's motion to withdraw.⁵

4 See id. at 511.

5 See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

Because Appellant entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential error is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of his plea, error that is not independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error occurring after entry of the guilty plea.⁶

6 See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 619-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666-67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

We have carefully reviewed counsel's brief and the appellate record. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the appellate record that arguably might support this appeal.⁷ Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment.

7 See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
--------

PER CURIAM PANEL: DAUPHINOT, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GARDNER, J. DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: February 26, 2015