Eddie Lee Ward v. State ( 2011 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-10-00081-CR
EDDIE LEE WARD APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
On October 14, 2009, pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant Eddie Lee
Ward pleaded guilty to indecency with a child,2 a second-degree felony.3 The
trial court placed Ward on ten years’ deferred adjudication community
supervision and imposed a fine of $1,000. Less than two months later, the State
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(a) (West 2011).
3
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(d) (West 2011).
filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging that Ward had violated the terms and
conditions of his community supervision in various ways. The State waived one
paragraph and Ward pleaded true to five of the six paragraphs remaining in the
State’s petition. After the adjudication hearing, the trial court found that Ward
had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, adjudicated
his guilt, and sentenced him to fifteen years’ confinement.4
Ward’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. California5 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.). Ward has also filed a pro se response to the Anders brief.6 In
addition, the State has filed a brief, to which Ward also filed a reply 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.
4
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.33 (West 2011).
5
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
6
Ward’s contentions include claims of actual innocence, ineffective
assistance of counsel, and violations of due process and due course of law.
2
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, the State’s brief,
and Ward’s responses to those briefs. 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: GARDNER, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: November 3, 2011
3