Albino Perez Salas v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 17, 2013
• Docket: 02-11-00432-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

02-11-432-CR

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00432-CR

Albino Perez Salas v. The State of Texas

§

From County Criminal Court No. 6 of Tarrant County (1240578) January 17, 2013 Per Curiam (nfp)

JUDGMENT

          This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there was no error in the trial court’s judgment.  It is ordered that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM

ALBINO PEREZ SALAS		APPELLANT
The State of Texas		STATE

----------

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL Court NO. 6 OF Tarrant COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

          Appellant Albino Perez Salas was convicted following a jury trial and sentenced to six months’ incarceration for the misdemeanor offense of indecent exposure.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.08(a) (West 2011).

          Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  In the brief, counsel avers that, in his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous.  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 and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for appeal.  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.).  This court gave Appellant the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, but he did not do so.  The State did not file a brief.

          Once an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we are obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if there is any arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf.  See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511; Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923.  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 and counsel’s brief.  We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might support any appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).  Accordingly, we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL:  GARDNER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  January 17, 2013

---

[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.