COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00352-CR
JOE NATHAN HAYWOOD, JR. A/K/A APPELLANT
JOE HAYWOOD
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
------------
Appellant Joe Nathan Haywood, Jr. a/k/a Joe Haywood pleaded guilty to
and was convicted of aggravated assault against a public servant, a first-degree
felony.
Haywood’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
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Haywood had the
opportunity to file a pro se brief but did not do so; the State has not filed a brief.
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 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.
/s/ Bob McCoy
BOB MCCOY
JUSTICE
PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: January 30, 2014
2