












 
 
 
 
 
 
                                      COURT
OF APPEALS
                                       SECOND
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                                   FORT
WORTH
 
 
                                        NO.
2-07-004-CR
 
 
WALTER BRADFORD BEAYRD                                               APPELLANT
 
                                                   V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                                STATE
 
                                              ------------
 
        FROM
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY
 
                                              ------------
 
                                MEMORANDUM
OPINION[1]
 
                                              ------------
Appellant Walter Bradford
Beayrd appeals his conviction for possession with intent to deliver between
four and two hundred grams of cocaine. 
We affirm.  




Appellant=s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel and a brief in support of that 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[2]
by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds for relief. 
Appellant has been given the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but has
failed to do so.
Once an appellant=s court-appointed attorney 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]  Because appellant entered an open plea of
guilty, our independent review for potential error is limited to potential
jurisdictional defects, voluntariness of the plea, error that is not
independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error occurring after
the guilty plea.[5]




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 might arguably support the appeal.[6]  Accordingly, we grant counsel=s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court=s judgment. 
 
PER CURIAM
 
PANEL:  CAYCE, C.J.; GARDNER and WALKER, JJ.
 
DO NOT PUBLISH        
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
 
DELIVERED:  August 14, 2008                                      




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


[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, 922B23 (Tex. App.CFort
Worth 1995, no pet.).


[4]See
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82B83,
109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).


[5]Monreal
v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Young
v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666B67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).


[6]See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827B28
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005); accord Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).


