Millicent Renee Wilson v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 26, 2018
• Docket: 02-17-00194-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00194-CR

MILLICENT RENEE WILSON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1416629D

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Millicent Renee Wilson appeals her conviction and ten-year sentence for

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony enhanced by

a prior felony conviction. She pleaded not guilty to the indictment and elected to

waive a jury. After the trial court found her guilty, she pleaded true to the

enhancement paragraph.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. Wilson’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a

brief under Anders v. California, representing that “[t]he record in this case

reveals no grounds that could be argued successfully on appeal.” 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 re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding).

Wilson filed a pro response to counsel’s brief, and the State filed a letter brief

agreeing with appellant’s attorney’s assessment of the appeal.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on

the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we

must independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,

511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 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, appellant’s pro se

response, and the State’s letter brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is

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.

2 /s/ Wade Birdwell WADE BIRDWELL JUSTICE

PANEL: KERR, PITTMAN, and BIRDWELL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: July 26, 2018