Opinion
02-23-00267-CR
07-11-2024
Dennis Allen Whorton, Appellant v. The State of Texas
Do Not Publish Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b)
On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1718988
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Walker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Wade Birdwell Justice.
A jury convicted Dennis Allen Whorton of the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a young child under the age of 14 and assessed his punishment at 30 years' confinement. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.02(b). The trial court sentenced him accordingly. We affirm.
Whorton's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion, in which brief he avers that, in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel's brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by professionally evaluating the appellate record and demonstrating why no arguable grounds for relief exist. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510-11 &n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Counsel also complied with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (requiring appointed counsel to notify the client that the motion and brief have been filed; to provide the client a copy of each; and to take steps to assist the client in understanding his pro se rights, effectuating those rights, and securing pro se access to the record).
This court gave Whorton the opportunity to file a response on his own behalf, but he did not do so. Likewise, the State declined to file a responsive brief.
After an appellant's court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills Anderss requirements, we must independently examine the record for any arguable ground that may be raised on the appellant's behalf. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. 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 counsel's brief and the appellate record. We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the appellate record that arguably might 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.