eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2013-07

Clarence Wayne Snodgrass v. State ( 2013 )


Menu:
 
  •                           COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00493-CR
CLARENCE WAYNE SNODGRASS                                                 APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                          STATE
----------
FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
----------
Appellant Clarence Wayne Snodgrass appeals the sentence the trial court
imposed after adjudicating him guilty of injury to a child. We affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel, accompanied by a brief in support of that motion. Counsel
states in the brief that in his professional opinion this appeal is frivolous and
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
without merit. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v.
California,
    386 U.S. 738
    ,
    87 S. Ct. 1396 
    (1967), by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for
relief. Appellant filed a pro se response to the Anders brief. The State did not
file a response.
Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on
the grounds that an 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, counsel’s brief, and Appellant’s
response to counsel’s 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. 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. See Garner v. State,
    300 S.W.3d 763
    , 766 (Tex. Crim. App.
2009).
2
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GARDNER, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: July 11, 2013
3