Bobby Fortune v. State
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-13-00028-CR
BOBBY FORTUNE APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Appellant Bobby Fortune was indicted for possessing heroin. He pled
guilty under the terms of a plea-bargain agreement in exchange for nine months’
confinement in a state jail. The plea proceedings were not recorded. The trial
court granted permission for Appellant to appeal, and Appellant timely filed notice
of appeal. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. withdraw and a brief in support of that motion. In counsel’s brief, he certifies that,
in his professional opinion, the 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.). We gave Appellant the opportunity to
file a brief on his own behalf by a date certain, which has since come and gone
without Appellant’s having availed himself of the opportunity. By letter, the State
acknowledges having received Appellant’s counsel’s brief and informs us that it
will not file its own brief in response.
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 the appellant’s 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 the brief filed by Appellant’s
counsel. 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
2 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DO NOT PUBLISH Tex.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: May 15, 2014
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bobby Fortune v. State (Bobby Fortune v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.