Ronald Neal v. State

Opinion

02-10-184-CR

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00184-CR

RONALD NEAL		APPELLANT
V.
The State of Texas		STATE

----------

FROM THE 213TH District Court OF Tarrant COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

          Appellant Ronald Neal entered an open plea of guilty to one count of murder.  After the trial court ordered preparation of a presentence investigation report and conducted a sentencing hearing, the trial court found Appellant guilty and sentenced him to eighty years’ confinement.

          Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of the motion.  In the brief, counsel avers that, in his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous.  Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for appeal.  We gave Appellant an opportunity to file a pro se brief, and Appellant filed a pro se brief that raises three points.[2]  The State did not file a brief.

          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.  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).

          Because Appellant entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential error is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Appellant’s plea, error that is not independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error occurring after entry of the guilty plea.  See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

          We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief, Appellant’s brief, and the appellate record.  We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might support any appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL:  GARDNER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED:  November 10, 2011

---

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

[2]Appellant contends in his three points that he presented legally and factually sufficient evidence of sudden passion and that the trial court erred by admitting an autopsy photograph.  Our review of the briefs and record included, but was not limited to, these matters.