Dennis Allen Whorton v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-23-00267-CR
___________________________
DENNIS ALLEN WHORTON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1718988
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Dennis Allen Whorton of the offense of continuous sexual
abuse of a young child under the age of 14 and assessed his punishment at 30 years’
confinement. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.02(b). The trial court sentenced him
accordingly. We affirm.
Whorton’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief
in support of that motion, in which brief he avers that, in his professional opinion, the
appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by professionally
evaluating the appellate record and demonstrating why no arguable grounds for relief
exist. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510–11 & n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Counsel also complied with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)
(requiring appointed counsel to notify the client that the motion and brief have been
filed; to provide the client a copy of each; and to take steps to assist the client in
understanding his pro se rights, effectuating those rights, and securing pro se access to
the record).
This court gave Whorton the opportunity to file a response on his own behalf,
but he did not do so. Likewise, the State declined to file a responsive brief.
After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the
ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills Anders’s requirements, we must
independently examine the record for any arguable ground that may be raised on the
2
appellant’s behalf. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. 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 appellate record. We agree
with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in
the appellate record that arguably might 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.
/s/ Wade Birdwell
Wade Birdwell
Justice
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: July 11, 2024
3