Robert Thompson v. State
This text of Robert Thompson v. State (Robert Thompson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00552-CR
ROBERT THOMPSON APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
Appellant Robert Thompson appeals from his conviction for aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon. A jury convicted him of the offense, and the trial
court sentenced him to fourteen years’ confinement. Appellant’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.
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. California 2 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating
why there are no arguable grounds for relief. Appellant filed a pro se response to
the Anders brief raising three issues; the State did not respond.
After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel 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. 3 Only
then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 4
We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the record. We agree with
counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in
the record that arguably might support the appeal. 5 Accordingly, we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: February 20, 2014
2 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). 3 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.). 4 See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). 5 See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Robert Thompson v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-thompson-v-state-texapp-2014.