                         COURT OF APPEALS
                         SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                              FORT WORTH


                              NO. 2-08-172-CR


JOHN THOMAS CRAWFORD                                         APPELLANT

                                       V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                STATE

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

          FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

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

     Appellant John Thomas Crawford pleaded guilty to possession of one

gram or more but less than four grams of methamphetamine. A jury assessed

punishment of seven years’ confinement, and the trial court sentenced

Appellant accordingly.




     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. 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 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.—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); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656,

666–67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).




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

                                       2
     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); 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.




                                               PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH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

DELIVERED: April 30, 2009




                                     3
