Timothy Scott Maness v. State ( 2011 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-10-00409-CR
TIMOTHY SCOTT MANESS APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
A jury convicted Appellant Timothy Scott Maness of theft of property under
$1,500 after having been previously convicted of theft two or more times. See
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(D) (West Supp. 2011). The jury
assessed his punishment at eighteen months’ confinement and a $500 fine, and
the trial court sentenced him accordingly.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Maness’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw
as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet
the requirements of Anders v. California2 by presenting a professional evaluation
of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. This
court afforded Maness the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, but he did
not do so.
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).
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 arguably might support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
PER CURIAM
2
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
2
PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: December 8, 2011
3