












 
 
 
 
 
 
                                        COURT
OF APPEALS
                                         SECOND
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                                     FORT
WORTH
 
 
                                           NO.
2-07-364-CR
 
 
MANUEL R. MURILLO                                                           APPELLANT
 
                                                      V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                                 STATE
 
                                                  ------------
 
             FROM
THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
 
                                                  ------------
 
                                  MEMORANDUM
OPINION[1]
 
                                                  ------------       
Appellant Manuel R. Murillo entered an open plea of guilty
to two counts of indecency with a child by contact and elected to have the jury
assess punishment.  The jury assessed punishment at two years= confinement on the first count and four years= community supervision on the second count.  The trial court sentenced Murillo in
accordance with the jury=s verdict. 




Murillo=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. California[2]
by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds for relief. 
Murillo was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did not
do so.
As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent
evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining
that the appeal is frivolous.  See
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v.
State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 1995,
no pet.).  Only then may we grant counsel=s motion to
withdraw.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 82B83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).  Because Murillo entered an open plea of
guilty, our independent review for potential error is limited to potential
jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Murillo=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); Young v.
State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666B67 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2000).




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,
827B28 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005); accord Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006).  We therefore grant
counsel=s motion to
withdraw and affirm the trial court=s judgment.
 
SUE WALKER
JUSTICE
 
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, HOLMAN, and
WALKER, JJ.
 
DO
NOT PUBLISH
Tex.
R. App. P. 47.2(b)
 
DELIVERED: October 16, 2008
 




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


[2]386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396
(1967).


