Emilio Rosas, Jr. v. State ( 2010 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-09-233-CR
EMILIO ROSAS, JR. APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
Appellant Emilio Rosas, Jr. entered an open plea of guilty to possession
of more than one but less than four grams of methamphetamine, enhanced to
a second-degree felony by two prior felony convictions involving controlled
substances. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(c) (Vernon Supp.
2009); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(a)(3) (Vernon Supp. 2009). He appeals
1
 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
his conviction and sentence of twenty years’ confinement and a $10,000 fine.
We affirm.
Appellant’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). Although we gave
appellant the opportunity to file a pro se brief, he did not do so. The State
likewise did not file a brief.
Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw
on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of
Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of 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).
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. 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.
2
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.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: April 8, 2010
3