Nathan Lee Brooks v. State

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-09-00436-CR
NATHAN LEE BROOKS APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Nathan Lee Brooks pleaded guilty to arson of a building and
elected to have a jury assess his punishment. The jury assessed his punishment
at sixteen years’ confinement, and the trial court sentenced him accordingly.
Brooks’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
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
the requirements of Anders v. California2 by presenting a professional evaluation
of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. We
gave Brooks an opportunity to file a pro se brief, and he has filed a letter that we
construe as his pro se brief. The State declined to file a reply.
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). Because Brooks entered an open plea of
guilty, our independent review for potential error is limited to potential
jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Brooks’s plea, error that is not
independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error occurring after entry
of the guilty plea. See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. Crim. App.
2003); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666–67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Brooks’s pro
se 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); accord Meza
2
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
2
v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We therefore grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: November 10, 2010
3