Cesar Labrada v. State

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                               COURT OF APPEALS

                                                 SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                                FORT WORTH

 

 

                                        NO. 2-08-166-CR

 

 

CESAR LABRADA                                                                APPELLANT

 

                                                   V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                                STATE

 

                                              ------------

 

            FROM THE 362ND DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

 

                                              ------------

 

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

 

                                              ------------

A jury convicted Appellant Cesar Labrada of indecency with a child and assessed his punishment at four years= confinement.  The trial court sentenced him accordingly.


Labrada=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 Labrada an opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did not file one.

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, 922B23 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 1995, no pet.).  Only then may we grant counsel=s motion to withdraw.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82B83, 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, 827B28 (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 DAUPHINOT, JJ.

 

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

 

DELIVERED:  June 18, 2009



[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.