eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2015-06

Ivery Gene Williams v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
 
  •                        COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-14-00305-CR
NO. 02-14-00306-CR
NO. 02-14-00307-CR
NO. 02-14-00308-CR
IVERY GENE WILLIAMS                                                APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                      STATE
----------
FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NOS. 1295114D, 1300732D, 1300733D, 1300734D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Ivery Gene Williams appeals judgments adjudicating him guilty
of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and sentencing him to seven years’
confinement.
Williams’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw
and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel avers that in his professional
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
opinion, these appeals are 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 Williams that he could file a
pro se response to the Anders 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 these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing
in the record that might arguably support the appeals. 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 judgments.
/s/ Bill Meier
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
2
PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: June 25, 2015
3