Robert Thompson v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 20, 2014
Docket02-12-00552-CR
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
Robert Thompson v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

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DO NOT PUBLISH Tex.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

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Mays v. State
904 S.W.2d 920 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Robert Thompson v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-thompson-v-state-texapp-2014.