Corey Taylor Beasley v. State

02-09-263-CR

 

 

 

 

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

 

NO. 2-09-263-CR

 

 

COREY TAYLOR BEASLEY

APPELLANT

                                                                                                                            

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS

 

STATE

 

 

------------

 

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

 

------------

 

                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

 

                                                       ------------

Appellant Corey Taylor Beasley appeals his jury conviction and twenty-five-month sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.04(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2009).  We affirm.

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, the appeal is 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 demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.  We gave Appellant the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he has not done so.  The State has not filed a 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 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.

 

 

PER CURIAM

 

PANEL:  GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and MEIER, J.

 

DO NOT PUBLISH         

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

 

DELIVERED:  August 26, 2010 



[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.