Aaron Dale Campbell v. State ( 2012 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00094-CR
NO. 02-11-00095-CR
AARON DALE CAMPBELL APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 271ST DISTRICT COURT OF WISE COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Aaron Dale Campbell waived his right to a jury trial and entered
open pleas of guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon and chemical transport
with intent to manufacture a controlled substance. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§ 46.04(a) (West 2011); see also Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann.
§ 481.124(a)(1) (West 2010). Campbell also pleaded true to enhancement
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
paragraphs contained in one of the indictments. Campbell now appeals his
convictions of five years’ and fifteen years’ confinement. We will affirm.
Campbell’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 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). We gave Campbell the
opportunity to file a pro se brief, and he did not file one. The State also did not
file a brief.
As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the
record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is
frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);
Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (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). Because Campbell entered an open plea
of guilty, our independent review for potential error is limited to potential
jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Campbell’s plea, error that is not
independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error occurring after entry
of the guilty plea. See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. Crim. App.
2003); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666–67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
2
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. 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.
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: MCCOY, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: June 21, 2012
3