William F. Lee v. State ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                          COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NO. 02-10-00307-CR
    WILLIAM F. LEE                                                      APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                       STATE
    ----------
    FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
    ----------
    MEMORANDUM OPINION1
    ----------
    Appellant William F. Lee appeals his conviction and fifteen-year sentence
    for burglary of a habitation. We affirm.
    A grand jury indicted appellant for burglary of a habitation, which is a
    second-degree felony;2 the indictment contained a repeat offender notice alleging
    that appellant had been previously convicted of another felony. Appellant
    1
    See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
    2
    See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a), (c)(2) (Vernon 2003).
    received appointed counsel.      His counsel filed several motions, including a
    motion for a competency examination on the grounds that appellant had ―flawed
    reasoning‖ and that his counsel wanted to ―rule out retardation issues.‖ The trial
    court ordered an examination, and a licensed psychologist conducted the
    examination and wrote a report that detailed appellant’s troubling childhood and
    adolescence, his dissatisfaction with his trial counsel, his ―generally logical
    thought processes with no evidence of psychosis,‖ and the psychologist’s opinion
    that appellant was competent to stand trial.3
    Appellant eventually entered an open guilty plea, and he pled true to the
    repeat offender notice.4   He received written admonishments about his plea,
    waived constitutional and statutory rights (which included waiving preparation of
    a presentence investigation report), and entered a judicial confession.       After
    hearing evidence and arguments from both sides regarding punishment, the trial
    court sentenced appellant to fifteen years’ confinement.5 Appellant filed notice of
    this appeal.
    3
    Appellant did not object to his competency to stand trial after the
    psychologist filed his report.
    4
    The trial court ensured that appellant understood the charge against him
    and the effect of his guilty plea.
    5
    The State called witnesses to discuss appellant’s burglary, in which he
    went into an apartment to steal a television, a computer tower, and other items.
    In an attempt to mitigate punishment, appellant called family members who
    testified about his difficult personal background.
    2
    Appellant’s 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. California by presenting a professional evaluation
    of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.
    
    386 U.S. 738
    , 744–45, 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    , 1400 (1967). We gave appellant an
    opportunity to respond to his counsel’s Anders brief, but he has not done so, and
    the State has also not filed a brief.
    Once an appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that
    the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we must
    independently examine 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). Because
    appellant entered an open guilty plea, our independent review for potential error
    is limited to jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of his plea, error that is not
    independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error occurring after entry
    of the 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); Anderson v.
    State, 
    985 S.W.2d 195
    , 196–97 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, pet. ref’d).
    We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s Anders 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.
    3
    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
    PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MCCOY and MEIER, JJ.
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
    DELIVERED: January 27, 2011
    4