Eugene Vasquez v. State ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                          COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NO. 2-09-032-CR
    NO. 2-09-033-CR
    EUGENE VASQUEZ                                                  APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                   STATE
    ------------
    FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY
    ------------
    MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
    ------------
    The State indicted appellant Eugene Vasquez for possession of a
    controlled substance—methamphetamine, more than four grams but less than
    two hundred grams. The indictment included a repeat-offender paragraph. The
    State also indicted Vasquez for the intentional possession of a firearm by a
    felon. This indictment also contained a repeat-offender paragraph. Vasquez
    1
     See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
    agreed to plead guilty to both indictments and true to the repeat-offender
    paragraph included in the possession of a firearm indictment. In exchange, the
    State agreed to waive the repeat-offender paragraph included in the controlled-
    substance indictment. Based on his pleas, the jury found Vasquez guilty of
    both charges and the one repeat-offender paragraph and sentenced him to
    twenty years’ confinement for each charge—his sentences are to run
    concurrently.
    Vasquez’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
    withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. 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. 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    (1967). We gave Vasquez
    an opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did not file one. The State declined
    to file a brief in response 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
    2
    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.
    PER CURIAM
    PANEL: MEIER, LIVINGSTON, and MCCOY, JJ.
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
    DELIVERED: December 17, 2009
    3