COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-07-004-CR
WALTER BRADFORD BEAYRD APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
Appellant Walter Bradford Beayrd appeals his conviction for possession
with intent to deliver between four and two hundred grams of cocaine. We
affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel
1
… See T EX. R. A PP. P. 47.4.
avers that, in his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. 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. Appellant has been given the opportunity to file a pro se
brief, but has failed to do so.
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. 3 Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 4 Because
appellant entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential
error is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, voluntariness of the plea, error
that is not independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error
occurring after the guilty plea. 5
2
… 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
3
… 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.).
4
… See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351
(1988).
5
… 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
We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the 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.6 Accordingly, we
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; GARDNER and WALKER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
T EX. R. A PP. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 14, 2008
6
… 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).
3