Donnell Junior Randles v. State ( 2015 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-14-00152-CR
NO. 02-14-00153-CR
DONNELL JUNIOR RANDLES APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NOS. 1179039D, 1312909R
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
In trial cause number 1179039D, the trial court revoked Appellant Donnell
Junior Randles’s community supervision upon his plea of true to the State’s
allegation that he violated his community supervision and sentenced him to ten
years’ confinement for the underlying offense of felony DWI. In trial cause
number 1312909R, Randles entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and the trial court found the
enhancement allegation true and sentenced Randles to twenty-five years’
confinement.
Randles’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, 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 Randles 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
2
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
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: July 23, 2015
3