COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00117-CR
Charlotte Whiting § From the 297th District Court
§ of Tarrant County (1232597D)
v. § February 7, 2013
§ Per Curiam
The State of Texas § (nfp)
JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that
there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of
the trial court is affirmed.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
PER CURIAM
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00117-CR
CHARLOTTE WHITING APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Charlotte Whiting appeals her conviction and three year prison
sentence imposed by the trial court after she pled guilty without a plea bargain to
prostitution enhanced to a second degree felony by three or more prior
convictions. We affirm.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel, accompanied by a brief in support of that motion. In the
brief, counsel states that in his professional opinion this appeal is frivolous and
without merit. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for
relief. Appellant filed a pro se response to the Anders brief. The State has filed
a letter response, stating that it agrees with Appellant’s counsel that there is no
reversible error.
Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on
the grounds that an 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, counsel’s brief, the State’s letter,
and Appellant’s response to 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
3
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: February 7, 2013
4