Bryan Ray Roe v. State

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                COURT OF APPEALS

                                                 SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                                 FORT WORTH

 

 

                                        NO. 2-07-352-CR

                                        NO. 2-07-354-CR

 

 

BRYAN RAY ROE                                                                APPELLANT

 

                                                   V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                                STATE

 

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

 

              FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

 

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

 

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

 

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

Appellant Bryan Ray Roe appeals from two convictions for indecency with a childBexposure.  The trial court convicted him in each case and sentenced him to confinement of ten years= in each case, with the sentences to run consecutively.  In each case, Appellant=s court‑appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  In the briefs, counsel avers that, in his professional opinion, these appeals are frivolous.  Counsel=s briefs and motions meet the requirements of Anders v. California[2] by presenting a professional evaluation of the records demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.  Although Appellant was given an opportunity to file a pro se brief, he has not done so.

After an appellant=s court-appointed counsel 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]

We have carefully reviewed counsel=s briefs and the records.  We agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the records that arguably might support the appeals.[5]  Accordingly, we grant counsel=s motions to withdraw and affirm the trial court=s judgments.

PER CURIAM

 

PANEL:  DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

 

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

 

DELIVERED: February 26, 2009


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

[3]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.).

[4]See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82B83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

[5]See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827B28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).