eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2017-03

Steven Blanchard v. State ( 2017 )


Menu:
 
  •                        COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-16-00180-CR
STEVEN BLANCHARD                                               APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                   STATE
----------
FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1409007D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Steven Blanchard appeals from a judgment convicting him of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentencing him to fifteen years’
confinement.
Blanchard’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw and a brief in support of that motion.   Counsel avers that in his
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the
requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of
the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See
    386 U.S. 738
    ,
    87 S. Ct. 1396 
    (1967).
In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel notified Blanchard of his motion
to withdraw, provided him a copy of the motion and brief, informed him of his
right to file a pro se response, informed him of his right to seek discretionary
review should this court hold the appeal is frivolous, and took concrete measures
to facilitate Blanchard’s review of the appellate record. See
    436 S.W.3d 313
    , 319
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court informed Blanchard that he could file a pro se
response, and he did 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, counsel’s brief, and Blanchard’s
response. 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
2
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.
/s/ Bill Meier
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: MEIER, KERR, and PITTMAN, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: March 23, 2017
3