COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NOS. 2-07-403-CR
2-07-404-CR
JOSEPH ALBERT DURANT APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
Appellant Joseph Albert Durant entered an open plea of guilty to two
charges of burglary of a building and also pleaded guilty to the enhancements.
The trial court found Durant guilty and assessed his punishment at ten years’
confinement in each case to run concurrently.
1
… See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4
Durant’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 professional
evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for
relief. Durant was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did not do
so.
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
Durant entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential error
is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Durant’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).
2
… 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
2
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); 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DO NOT PUBLISH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: September 4, 2008
3