COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-10-00517-CR
Elias James Murrell § From the 297th District Court
§ of Tarrant County (1103962D)
v. § November 15, 2012
§ Opinion by Justice Meier
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
By_________________________________
Justice Bill Meier
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-10-00517-CR
ELIAS JAMES MURRELL APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
A jury convicted Appellant Elias James Murrell of aggravated robbery with
a deadly weapon and assessed his punishment at nineteen years’ confinement.
Murrell’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel avers that in his
professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the
requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386
U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). This court informed Murrell that he may file a
pro se brief, and he did so. The State declined to submit a brief in response to
the Anders brief or to Murrell’s 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, Murrell’s brief, 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.
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MEIER and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
3
DELIVERED: November 15, 2012
4
Elias James Murrell v. State
Combined Opinion