                        COURT OF APPEALS
                         SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                              FORT WORTH

                                NO. 02-12-00385-CR


EDWIN HERBERT PHELPS III                                            APPELLANT

                                         V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                       STATE


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

          FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

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

      Appellant Edwin Herbert Phelps III appeals his conviction for aggravated

sexual assault of a child, entered after the trial court revoked his deferred

adjudication community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him

to twenty years’ confinement.

      Phelps’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


      1
       See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
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). Phelps had the opportunity to file a pro se brief

but has not done so; the State has not filed a brief.

      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, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH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

DELIVERED: May 16, 2013


                                          2
