                        COURT OF APPEALS
                        SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                             FORT WORTH

                            NOS. 02-10-00155-CR
                                 02-10-00156-CR


MATTHEW DUFRESNE                                                  APPELLANT
WILLIAMS

                                       V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                     STATE


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

     FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

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

      Appellant Matthew Dufresne Williams appeals the trial court’s judgments

revoking his deferred adjudication community supervision and sentencing him to

nine years’ confinement for possessing four or more but less than two hundred

grams of cocaine with intent to deliver, in appellate cause number 02-10-00155-

      1
      See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
CR, and sentencing him to two years’ confinement in state jail for evading arrest

or detention using a vehicle in appellate cause number 02-10-00156-CR, to be

served concurrently.

      Williams’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 by presenting a professional evaluation

of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386

U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We gave Williams an opportunity to file a pro se

brief, but he has not done 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. 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: MCCOY, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH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

DELIVERED: January 5, 2012




                                         3
