COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-08-172-CR
JOHN THOMAS CRAWFORD APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
Appellant John Thomas Crawford pleaded guilty to possession of one
gram or more but less than four grams of methamphetamine. A jury assessed
punishment of seven years’ confinement, and the trial court sentenced
Appellant accordingly.
1
… See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant’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. Appellant 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
Appellant entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential
error is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of
Appellant’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.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GARDNER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: April 30, 2009
3
John Thomas Crawford v. State
Combined Opinion