












 
 
 
 
 
 
                                      COURT
OF APPEALS
                                       SECOND
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                                   FORT
WORTH
 
 
                                        NO.
2-07-005-CR
 
 
WILLIAM JOSEPH MORIN                                                      APPELLANT
 
                                                   V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                                STATE
 
                                              ------------
 
              FROM
THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY
 
                                              ------------
 
                                MEMORANDUM
OPINION[1]
 
                                              ------------
William Joseph Morin appeals
from his convictions for promotion of child pornography and possession of child
pornography.  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. 
Although appellant was given an opportunity to file a brief, he has not
done so.
Once an appellant=s court-appointed counsel 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, 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.[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 arguably might support the appeal.[6]  Accordingly, we grant counsel=s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court=s judgment.
 
PER CURIAM
 
PANEL
F:  CAYCE, C.J.; HOLMAN and GARDNER, JJ.
 
DO NOT PUBLISH        
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
 
DELIVERED:  January 3, 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, 922-23 (Tex. App.CFort
Worth 1995, no pet.).


[4]See
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). 


[5]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).


[6]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). 


