Cecil Earl Scarbrough v. State

Opinion

02-10-020-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00020-CR

Cecil Earl Scarbrough		APPELLANT
V.
The State of Texas		STATE

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

FROM THE 355th District Court OF Hood COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

----------

          Appellant Cecil Earl Scarbrough pled guilty before a jury, which after hearing evidence on the issue of punishment, assessed his sentence at twenty years’ confinement with no fine.  The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly.  We affirm.

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 her 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 demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.  We gave Appellant the opportunity to file a pro se brief, and he has not filed one.  The State also has not filed a brief.

          Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the 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 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 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. 

PER CURIAM

PANEL:  GABRIEL, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED:  January 6, 2011

---

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