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

Torrey Caswell v. State ( 2009 )


Menu:
 
  •                           COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-09-157-CR
TORREY CASWELL                                                      APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                       STATE
------------
FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
Appellant Torrey Caswell waived a jury and entered an open plea of guilt
to one charge of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. He appeals his
conviction and sentence of seven years’ confinement. 2 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
avers that, in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief
1
… See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
… The judgment includes a deadly weapon finding.
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). Appellant declined
to file a pro se brief, and the State declined to file 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 this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find
nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v.
2
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: LIVINGSTON, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: November 19, 2009
3