eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2015-09

Andrew Martinez v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
 
  •                         COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-14-00422-CR
ANDREW MARTINEZ                                                   APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                     STATE
----------
FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. CR12433
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Andrew Martinez entered a plea of guilty on August 13, 2013, to
indecency with a child by contact. The trial court placed Martinez on deferred
adjudication community supervision for ten years. On December 30, 2013, and
upon the State’s motion, Martinez’s community supervision was modified by
adding the conditions that he serve 120 days in jail and attend psychological
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
counseling for sex offenders. Later, on September 9, 2014, the State petitioned
the trial court to proceed to adjudication. At the adjudication hearing, held on
October 7, 2014, Martinez entered pleas of “True” to each of the State’s
allegations. After hearing testimony, the trial court adjudicated Martinez guilty of
indecency with a child by contact and sentenced him to fifteen years’
incarceration. This appeal followed.
Martinez’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 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 Martinez that he was
entitled to file a pro se brief, but he did not do so. The State did not submit a brief
as well.
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).
2
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.
/s/ Bill Meier
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MEIER and SUDDERTH, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: September 24, 2015
3