COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-14-00420-CR
NO. 02-14-00421-CR
AMANDA JANE STANLEY APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NOS. CR12558, CR12699
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Amanda Jane Stanley pleaded guilty to possession of
methamphetamine in the amount of less than one gram in both trial cause
numbers The trial court, pursuant to a plea bargain, placed Stanley on deferred
adjudication community supervision. Later, the trial court found the State’s
alleged violations of Stanley’s community supervision to be true, revoked her
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
community supervision, and adjudicated her guilty in both causes. The trial court
then sentenced Stanley to two years in jail for each trial cause number, with the
sentences to run concurrently.
Stanley’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). This court informed Stanley that she could file a
pro se brief, and she did. The State did not submit a brief, but rather submitted a
letter stating that it agreed with appellate counsel that this appeal is wholly
frivolous.
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, the State’s letter,
and Stanley’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
2
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.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: MEIER, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 25, 2015
3