Anthony Stephens v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-23-00299-CR ___________________________

ANTHONY STEPHENS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 485th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1678472

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell MEMORANDUM OPINION

Anthony Stephens appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly

weapon, a second-degree-felony offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2).

Stephens entered a guilty plea without the benefit of a sentencing bargain1 and elected

to have his punishment assessed by the trial judge. Following a sentencing hearing, the

trial court sentenced Stephens to fifteen years’ incarceration. This appeal followed. 2

On appeal, Stephens’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel and a brief reflecting that counsel has determined, after

examining the appellate record, that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and

motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the

entire record in the case demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.

Id., 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Stephens filed a pro se response to the Anders brief. 3 The State

Although Stephens and the State did not enter into a sentencing bargain, they 1

did enter into a charge bargain. See Thomas v. State, 516 S.W.3d 498, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (explaining the difference between “sentence bargains” and “charge bargains”). In exchange for Stephens’s pleading guilty to the aggravated-assault-with- a-deadly-weapon count, the State agreed to waive three additional counts for which he had been indicted.

Stephens filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled by operation of 2

law. 3 Stephens filed his response in the trial court, but it was forwarded to this court in a supplemental clerk’s record.

2 did not file a brief but noted in a letter that it agreed with Stephens’s counsel that

there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.

We have independently examined the record, as is our duty upon the filing of

an Anders brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see

also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). After carefully

reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel that this appeal is

wholly frivolous and without merit. Our independent review of the record reveals

nothing further that might arguably support the appeal. 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 judgment.

/s/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: August 22, 2024