Timothy Carl Wycoff v. State ( 2010 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-09-088-CR
TIMOTHY CARL WYCOFF APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
Appellant Timothy Carl Wycoff pleaded guilty to possession of less than
one gram of methamphetamine. On August 9, 2007, the trial court placed him
on two years’ deferred adjudication community supervision. The State filed a
petition to proceed to adjudication on April 18, 2008, alleging that Wycoff had
violated several conditions of his community supervision, including testing
1
 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
positive for marijuana on several occasions, failure to report to community
supervision on three occasions, failure to pay community supervision and crime
stoppers fees, failure to pay for drug testing, and failure to attend outpatient
treatment. Wycoff pleaded “true” to the allegations. The trial court
adjudicated Wycoff guilty and sentenced him to two years’ confinement.
Wycoff’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
averred that, in his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief
and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California 2 by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible
grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might arguably support the
appeal. See Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
1995, no pet.). This court afforded Wycoff the opportunity to file a brief on his
own behalf, but he did not do so. The State also chose not to 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);
2
 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
2
see also Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 922–23. 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 counsel’s brief and the record. 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, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we
grant counsel’s 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: February 18, 2010
3