eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2009-11

Anthony Chinoye Madu v. State ( 2009 )


Menu:
 
  •                           COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-08-409-CR
ANTHONY CHINOYE MADU                                               APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                       STATE
------------
FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
After waiving a jury and entering an open plea of guilty, appellant
Anthony Chinoye Madu appeals his conviction and twenty-five-year sentence
for aggravated sexual assault of a child. We affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel
1
 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
avers that, in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief
and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California 2 by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds for relief. We gave appellant the opportunity to file a pro se brief, and
he has filed one. The State has not filed 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. 3 Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 4
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s
pro se 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
2

    386 U.S. 738
    ,
    87 S. Ct. 1396 
    (1967).
3
 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.).
4
 See Penson v. Ohio,
    488 U.S. 75
    , 82–83,
    109 S. Ct. 346
    , 351
(1988).
2
appeal. 5 Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the
trial court’s judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; GARDNER and WALKER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: November 25, 2009
5
 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).
3