Billy J. Swanson v. State

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-07-271-CR
BILLY J. SWANSON APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
A jury convicted Appellant Billy J. Swanson of delivery of less than one
gram of cocaine and, after Swanson pleaded true to the enhancement
paragraphs contained in the indictment, assessed punishment at eight and a
half years’ confinement. The trial court sentenced him accordingly.
Swanson’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and
1
… See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California 2 by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds for relief. Swanson has filed a pro se brief in which he enumerates six
potential sources of error. In addition, the State has filed a letter brief.
As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of
the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the
appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (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, Swanson’s pro
se brief, and the State’s brief. We agree 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Swanson’s counsel and
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
SUE WALKER
JUSTICE
2
… 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
2
PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and WALKER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: February 19, 2009
3