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

Parks Walter Hunter, III v. State ( 2009 )


Menu:

  •  

     

     

     

     

     

                                                    COURT OF APPEALS

                                                     SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                                    FORT WORTH

     

     

                                            NO. 2-08-426-CR  

     

     

    PARKS WALTER HUNTER, III                                                 APPELLANT

     

                                                       V.

     

    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                                STATE

     

                                                  ------------

     

            FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

     

                                                  ------------

     

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

     

                                                  ------------

    After waiving a jury and entering an open plea of guilty, appellant Parks Walter Hunter, III appeals his conviction and twelve-year sentence for possession with intent to deliver cocaine.  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 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 not 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 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.[5]  Accordingly, we grant counsel=s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court=s judgment.

     

    PER CURIAM

    PANEL:  CAYCE, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

     

    DO NOT PUBLISH

    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

     

    DELIVERED:  November 25, 2009


    [1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

    [3]See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922B23 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 1995, no pet.).

    [4]See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82B83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

    [5]See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827B28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).