Todd Christopher Sweeney v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 11, 2012
• Docket: 02-11-00183-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00183-CR

Todd Christopher Sweeney		APPELLANT
V.
The State of Texas		STATE

----------

FROM THE 371st District Court OF Tarrant COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

After a jury found Appellant Todd Christopher Sweeney guilty of causing bodily injury to an elderly person, Appellant pled “true” to habitual offender enhancement paragraphs in the indictment, the trial court sentenced him to thirty years’ confinement, and he filed a notice of appeal.  We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, accompanied by a brief in support of that motion.  In the brief, counsel states that in his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous and without merit.  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 demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.  Appellant filed a pro se response to the Anders brief. The State has not filed a brief.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the grounds that an 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, counsel’s brief, and Appellant’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.

PER CURIAM

PANEL:  GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED:  October 11, 2012

Todd Christopher Sweeney

§

From the 371st District Court of Tarrant County (1227543R) October 11, 2012 Per Curiam (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

PER CURIAM

---

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