COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-10-00144-CR
ZACHARY LEE MACK SR. APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 89TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
A jury convicted Appellant Zachary Lee Mack Sr. of failing to comply with
sex offender registration requirements and assessed punishment at six years’
confinement. The trial court sentenced him accordingly.
Mack’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw
and a brief in support of that motion. 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 reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
arguably support the appeal. See Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). The State filed a letter brief in response stating
that it agrees with counsel’s evaluation of the record. We afforded Mack an
opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf; he did not do so.
In our duties as a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent
evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining
that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991); 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, counsel’s brief, and the State’s
letter brief. We agree that the 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the
motion to withdraw filed by Mack’s counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: MCCOY, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: March 10, 2011
2