                        COURT OF APPEALS
                         SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                              FORT WORTH

                             NO. 02-14-00162-CR


FRENDALE ANTONIO ANDERSON                                          APPELLANT

                                       V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                      STATE


                                    ----------

          FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
                      TRIAL COURT NO. 1264135D

                                    ----------

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION1

                                    ----------

      Appellant Frendale Antonio Anderson pleaded guilty to burglary of a

habitation and true to a repeat offender allegation, and a jury sentenced him to

twenty-five years’ confinement.

      Anderson’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw and a brief in support of that motion.     Counsel avers that in his


      1
       See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. 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. See 386

U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). This court informed Anderson that he may file a

pro se brief, and he did so. The State did not submit 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, counsel’s brief, and Anderson’s

pro se 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.

                                                    /s/ Bill Meier

                                                    BILL MEIER
                                                    JUSTICE



                                         2
PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH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

DELIVERED: April 23, 2015




                                3
