COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00322-CR
NO. 02-11-00323-CR
NO. 02-11-00324-CR
HORACE LAWSON PHILLIPS, III APPELLANT
A/K/A HARACE LAWSON
PHILLIPS, III
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Horace Lawson Phillips, III a/k/a Harace Lawson Phillips, III
pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement to two charges of
aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and one charge of robbery causing
bodily injury, and the trial court placed him on seven years’ deferred adjudication
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
community supervision in each case. Subsequently, the State filed its first
amended petition to proceed to adjudication in each case, alleging multiple
violations of the conditions of community supervision. At a hearing on the State’s
petitions, Appellant pleaded “true” to several of the alleged violations. After both
sides presented evidence, the trial court found that Appellant had violated the
terms and conditions of his community supervision, adjudicated his guilt in each
case, and sentenced him to twenty-five years’ confinement in his two aggravated
robbery cases and fifteen years’ confinement in his robbery case. The trial court
ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant timely filed notice of these
appeals.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel
avers that, in his professional opinion, these appeals are frivolous. 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 and
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for appeal. 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.). This court gave Appellant
the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, but he did not do so. The State
did not file a brief.
Once an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on
the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we
2
are obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if
there is any arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf. See Stafford, 813
S.W.2d at 511; Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923. 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 these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing
in the record that arguably might support any appeal.2 See Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d
763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Accordingly, we grant the motion to withdraw
and affirm the trial court’s judgments.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GARDNER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: July 19, 2012
2
We note that Appellant’s pleas of true to some of the allegations in the
State’s petitions to proceed to adjudication were sufficient to support the trial
court’s decision to revoke community supervision and to adjudicate Appellant’s
guilt in each case. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App.
[Panel Op.] 1979).
3