eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2011-12

Dereck Jamison Smith v. State ( 2011 )


Menu:
 
  •                         COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00178-CR
DERECK JAMISON SMITH                                               APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                      STATE
----------
FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Dereck Jamison Smith entered an open plea of guilty to burglary
of a habitation with intent to commit aggravated robbery and pleaded true to a
prior felony conviction alleged in the repeat offender notice.   The trial court
sentenced Smith to thirty years’ confinement at the conclusion of the punishment
hearing.    Smith’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel avers that in
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
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. See
    386 U.S. 738
    ,
    87 S. Ct. 1396 
    (1967). This court informed Smith that he could 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. 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). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
2
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MEIER and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: December 15, 2011
3