                        COURT OF APPEALS
                         SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                              FORT WORTH

                             NO. 02-10-00020-CR


CECIL EARL SCARBROUGH                                               APPELLANT

                                        V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                       STATE


                                    ------------

             FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

                                    ------------

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION1
                                     ----------

      Appellant Cecil Earl Scarbrough pled guilty before a jury, which after

hearing evidence on the issue of punishment, assessed his sentence at twenty

years’ confinement with no fine. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly.

We affirm.




      1
       See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
       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 her professional opinion, the 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

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. We gave Appellant

the opportunity to file a pro se brief, and he has not filed one. The State also has

not filed a brief.

       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. 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 and counsel’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




                                         2
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, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: January 6, 2011




                                         3
