DocketNumber： 02-07-00271-CR
Filed Date： 2/19/2009
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 4/17/2021
|
|
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 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.CFort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel=s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82B83, 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
PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and WALKER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: February 19, 2009