Anthony Mark Klish v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 18, 2012
• Docket: 02-11-00519-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

02-11-519 & 520-CR

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00519-CR

NO. 02-11-00520-CR

ANTHONY MARK KLISH

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

STATE

------------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

Appellant Anthony Mark Klish appeals his convictions and ten year concurrent prison sentences imposed by the court after he pled guilty without a plea bargain to two charges of burglary of a habitation.  We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, accompanied by a brief in support of that motion.  In the brief, counsel states that in his professional opinion these appeals are frivolous and without merit.  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 records demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.  Appellant filed a pro se response to the Anders brief.  The State has filed a letter brief.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the grounds that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record.  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.).  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 records, counsel’s brief, Appellant’s response, and the State’s letter brief.  We agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the records that might arguably support the appeals.  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 judgments.

                                                                             PER CURIAM

PANEL:  GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and MEIER, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED:  October 18, 2012

§

From Criminal District Court No. 2 of Tarrant County (1231611D) October 18, 2012 (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

From Criminal District Court No. 2 of Tarrant County (1239674D)

          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

---

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