COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-09-032-CR
NO. 2-09-033-CR
EUGENE VASQUEZ APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
The State indicted appellant Eugene Vasquez for possession of a
controlled substance—methamphetamine, more than four grams but less than
two hundred grams. The indictment included a repeat-offender paragraph. The
State also indicted Vasquez for the intentional possession of a firearm by a
felon. This indictment also contained a repeat-offender paragraph. Vasquez
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
agreed to plead guilty to both indictments and true to the repeat-offender
paragraph included in the possession of a firearm indictment. In exchange, the
State agreed to waive the repeat-offender paragraph included in the controlled-
substance indictment. Based on his pleas, the jury found Vasquez guilty of
both charges and the one repeat-offender paragraph and sentenced him to
twenty years’ confinement for each charge—his sentences are to run
concurrently.
Vasquez’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 by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We gave Vasquez
an opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did not file one. The State declined
to file a brief in response as well.
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
2
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 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); 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 judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: MEIER, LIVINGSTON, and MCCOY, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: December 17, 2009
3