COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-10-00130-CR
RENARD WRIGHT APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM THE 158TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
------------
Appellant Renard Wright appeals his conviction for one count of
aggravated sexual assault of a child and one count of indecency with a child.
Wright’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 professional evaluation
of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We gave Wright an opportunity to file a pro se
brief, and he has done so. The State also filed a response.
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, counsel’s brief, Wright’s pro se
brief, and the State’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.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: MCCOY, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: October 20, 2011
2