COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00641-CR
ANTONIO DARNELL JOHNSON APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Antonio Darnell Johnson pleaded guilty to burglary of a building,
and a jury assessed his punishment at two years’ confinement. Johnson’s court-
appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support
of that motion. Counsel avers that in her professional opinion, the appeal is
frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v.
California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396
(1967). This court informed Johnson that he may file a pro se brief, but he did
not do so. The State declined to submit 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/ Bill Meier
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: January 30, 2014
2