









02-10-126-CR



























COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
 



 
NO. 02-10-00126-CR
 
 



Cruz Duenas


 


APPELLANT




 
V.
 




The State of Texas


 


STATE



 
 
----------
 
FROM Criminal
District Court No. 1
OF Tarrant COUNTY
----------
 
MEMORANDUM
OPINION[1]
----------
 
Appellant
Cruz Duenas appeals the revocation of his community
supervision.  Duenas’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 Duenas 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 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, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.
 
DO
NOT PUBLISH
Tex.
R. App. P. 47.2(b)
 
DELIVERED:  March 10,
2011

 




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



