Elias James Murrell v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 15, 2012
• Docket: 02-10-00517-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

02-10-517-CR

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00517-CR

Elias James Murrell v. The State of Texas

§

From the 297th District Court of Tarrant County (1103962D) November 15, 2012 Opinion by Justice Meier (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 Bill Meier

Elias James Murrell		APPELLANT
The State of Texas		STATE

----------

FROM THE 297th District Court OF Tarrant COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

          A jury convicted Appellant Elias James Murrell of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and assessed his punishment at nineteen years’ confinement.  Murrell’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  Counsel avers that in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous.  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.  See 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).  This court informed Murrell that he may file a pro se brief, and he did so.  The State declined to submit a brief in response to the Anders brief or to Murrell’s 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, Murrell’s brief, 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.

BILL MEIER
JUSTICE

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

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED:  November 15, 2012

---

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