NO. 07-02-0467-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
APRIL 7, 2004
______________________________
MARK WAYNE CARTER, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE CRIMINAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;
NO. 67290; HON. LARRY GIST, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, S.J.1
On April 8, 1996, appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of
aggravated sexual assault. He was originally granted deferred adjudication and placed on
probation for a period of ten years. On September 3, 2002, at a hearing on the State’s
motion to proceed to adjudication and after appellant’s plea of true to three of the State’s
1
John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2004).
allegations, the court adjudicated his guilt. His punishment was later assessed at 15 years
confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Appellant’s counsel has now filed an Anders brief with this court in which he states
he has thoroughly examined the trial record and determined the appeal is without merit.
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967);
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 809-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). With his brief, counsel has
attached a copy of his letter to appellant forwarding a copy of the brief. Additionally, he
has filed a motion to withdraw and notified appellant that he has filed such a motion and
of appellant’s right to file a pro se brief. Counsel also requested an extension of time within
which appellant might file a pro se brief if he desired to do so. That motion was granted
and the time for filing a pro se brief extended to July 22, 2003, with a further extension at
appellant’s request to September 22, 2003. Appellant has not filed a pro se brief.
Before allowing counsel to withdraw, we must first satisfy ourselves that the attorney
has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable
claim that might support the client’s appeal and then we must determine whether counsel
has correctly concluded the appeal is frivolous. See McCoy v. Court of Appeals of
Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). We have made
an independent examination of the record to determine if there are any arguable grounds
that might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102
L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We
2
have found no such grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is without merit and
is frivolous. Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed and counsel’s motion to
withdraw is granted.
John T. Boyd
Senior Justice
Do not publish.
3