Eddie Calvin Dorris, II v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 14, 2013
• Docket: 02-12-00034-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

02-12-034 & 035-CR

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00034-CR

Eddie Calvin Dorris, II v. The State of Texas

§

From the 396th District Court of Tarrant County (1166471D) February 14, 2013 Opinion by Justice McCoy (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

By_________________________________

    Justice Bob McCoy

NO. 02-12-00034-CR
NO. 02-12-00035-CR

APPELLANT

THE STATE OF TEXAS

STATE

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

FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

Appellant Eddie Calvin Dorris II appeals his two convictions for assault after the trial court revoked his deferred adjudication community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of both offenses, and sentenced him to ten years’ confinement in each case concurrently but consecutive to his sentence for a third assault conviction.

Dorris’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.  386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).  Dorris had the opportunity to file a pro se brief and has done so; the State 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, counsel’s brief, and Dorris’s pro se 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.

                                                          BOB MCCOY

                                                          JUSTICE

PANEL:  LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MCCOY and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED:  February 14, 2013

---

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