Joseph Lynn Lucas v. State ( 2012 )

02-11-380-CR

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00380-CR

Joseph Lynn Lucas		APPELLANT
V.
The State of Texas		STATE

----------

FROM THE 396th District Court OF Tarrant COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

----------

          Appellant Joseph Lynn Lucas pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain to driving while intoxicated–felony repetition.  The trial court sentenced Lucas to ten years’ confinement, but suspended imposition of the sentence and placed Lucas on community supervision for ten years.  The State subsequently filed a petition to revoke Lucas’s probated sentence, alleging that he had violated several terms and conditions of his community supervision.  Lucas pleaded true to each of the State’s allegations, and the trial court revoked Lucas’s community supervision and sentenced him to ten years’ confinement.

          Lucas’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, this 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.  See Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).  Lucas filed a pro se response to the Anders brief.  The State did not file a brief.

          Once an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we are obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if there is any arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923.  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 Lucas’s response.  We agree with counsel that the 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Consequently, we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

BILL MEIER
JUSTICE

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED:  June 21, 2012

---

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

[2]386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).