Dylan Scott Payton v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-25-00352-CR

___________________________

DYLAN SCOTT PAYTON, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 89th District Court Wichita County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC89-CR2024-0214

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted Dylan Scott Payton of intentionally or knowingly possessing four or more, but less than two hundred, grams of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver and assessed his punishment at fifteen years’ confinement. See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a), (d); Tex. Penal Code § 12.42(c)(1). Payton timely filed a notice of appeal.

Payton’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion, stating that after a careful review of the record, he could not find any “legally non-frivolous issue to raise on appeal.” 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 record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id. In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel sent Payton copies of the motion to withdraw, Anders brief, and appellate record, along with an explanation of the right to file a pro se response. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Counsel also explained that Payton could seek discretionary review from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals should this court agree that the appeal is frivolous. See id.

Although given the opportunity to do so, neither Payton nor the State has filed a response.

We have independently examined the record, as is our duty when appointed counsel files an Anders brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim.

3

App. 2005); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 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 that might arguably support an appeal. See Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28.

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: July 23, 2026