COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-14-00330-CR
NO. 02-14-00331-CR
NO. 02-14-00332-CR
MCKENDRICK PATTON, III APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1288658D, 1164893D, 1162203D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
----------
In July 2012, Appellant was found guilty of aggravated robbery in cause
no. 02-14-00331-CR, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years incarceration,
suspended the sentence, and placed him on community supervision for ten
years, based on a jury’s verdict. Also in July 2012, the trial court accepted
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant’s pleas of guilty and placed Appellant on deferred adjudication
community supervision for ten years in another aggravated robbery case (cause
no. 02-14-00332-CR) and for ten years in a bail-jumping case (cause no. 02-14-
00330-CR), to run concurrently. In July 2014, the State filed a petition to revoke
community supervision and two petitions to proceed to adjudication.
At the hearing on the petitions, Appellant entered open pleas of true to six
of the State’s allegations. After hearing testimony from Appellant’s probation
officer and Appellant’s mother, the trial court found that Appellant had violated
the terms and conditions of his community supervision as alleged in four
paragraphs of the State’s petitions. It adjudicated Appellant guilty of aggravated
robbery and bail-jumping, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced
him to thirty-year, ten-year, and ten-year sentences respectively, with all
sentences to run concurrently. This appeal followed.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel avers that in his
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). Appellant filed a pro se response.
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
2
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.). When
performing this evaluation, we consider the record, the arguments raised in the
Anders brief, and any issues Appellant raises in his pro se response.
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding).
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 counsel’s brief, Appellant’s response, and the
appellate record. 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
judgments.
/s/ Lee Gabriel
LEE GABRIEL
JUSTICE
PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 25, 2015
3