COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-16-00138-CR
BOBBY JOE CASTRO APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 90TH DISTRICT COURT OF YOUNG COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 10099
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Bobby Joe Castro appeals from a judgment adjudicating him
guilty of assault causing bodily injury to a family or household member two or
more times within twelve months, enhanced by a prior felony conviction. See
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(a) (West Supp. 2016), § 25.11(a) (West 2011).
Castro’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
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 the record and
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738,
87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel notified Castro
of his motion to withdraw, provided him a copy of the motion and brief, informed
him of his right to file a pro se response, informed him of his right to seek
discretionary review should this court hold the appeal is frivolous, and took
concrete measures to facilitate Castro’s review of the appellate record. See 436
S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court informed Castro that he may
file a pro se brief, but he did not do so. The State did not submit 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, and 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
2
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: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: October 27, 2016
3