From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hughes v. State

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
Apr 10, 2014
NO. 02-13-00408-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 10, 2014)

Opinion

NO. 02-13-00408-CR

04-10-2014

JERALD HUGHES APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE


FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY


MEMORANDUM OPINION

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

Appellant Jerald Hughes appeals his felony conviction for possession of four or more, but less than two hundred, grams of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, enhanced by a habitual offender allegation. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(a), (d) (West 2010); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (West Supp. 2013). Appellant pled guilty pursuant to an open plea, and the trial judge assessed his punishment at twenty-five years' confinement. We 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 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 demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406-12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We gave appellant an opportunity to file a pro se response, but he has not done so. Likewise, 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, we are 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 the 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 judgment.

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 DO NOT PUBLISH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


Summaries of

Hughes v. State

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
Apr 10, 2014
NO. 02-13-00408-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 10, 2014)
Case details for

Hughes v. State

Case Details

Full title:JERALD HUGHES APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

Court:COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

Date published: Apr 10, 2014

Citations

NO. 02-13-00408-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 10, 2014)