COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-07-456-CR
GERARDO GUERRERO APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
Appellant Gerardo Guerrero entered an open plea of guilty to aggravated
robbery. The trial court assessed his punishment at seven years’ confinement.
Guerrero’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 2 by presenting a
1
… See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
… 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds for relief. Guerrero was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but
he did not do so.3
As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of
the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the
appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (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). Because
Guerrero entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential
error is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Guerrero’s
plea, error that is not independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and
error occurring after entry of the guilty plea. See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d
615, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666–67
(Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree
with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. W e find
nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v.
3
… Guerrero filed a letter response that fails to raise any issue or point on
appeal.
2
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); accord Meza v.
State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We therefore grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
SUE WALKER
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: December 4, 2008
3