COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-16-00115-CR
JAMES CLAYTON GARRETT APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1419884D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant James Clayton Garrett entered an open plea of guilty to robbery
causing bodily injury and pleaded true to a repeat offender notice. Following the
preparation of a presentence investigation report, the trial court conducted a
punishment hearing, convicted Garrett of the underlying offense, and sentenced
him to ten years’ confinement.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Garrett’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw
and a 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 Garrett 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 Garrett’s review of the appellate record. See
436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court informed Garrett that he
may file a pro se response to counsel’s brief, and he did 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, counsel’s brief, and Garrett’s pro
se response, and we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and
2
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.
/s/ Bill Meier
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: December 22, 2016
3