COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-17-00411-CR
NO. 02-17-00412-CR
ANTHONY ANDERSON APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NOS. 1465691D, 1468433D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
A jury convicted Appellant Anthony Anderson of robbery causing bodily
injury and attempted sexual assault and assessed his punishment at sixty years’
confinement and a $10,000 fine for the robbery and at twenty years’ confinement
and a $10,000 fine for the attempted sexual assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
§ 22.011(a)(1) (West Supp. 2017), § 29.02 (West 2011). The trial court
sentenced him accordingly and ordered the sentences to run concurrently.
Anderson’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 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967); see In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (analyzing the
effect of Anders). In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel notified Anderson of
the motion to withdraw, provided him a copy of the Anders brief, informed him of
his right to file a pro se response, informed him of his pro se right to seek
discretionary review should this court hold that the appeal is frivolous, took
concrete measures to facilitate Anderson’s review of the appellate record, and
supplied Anderson with the mailing address for our court and the court of criminal
appeals. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Although Anderson
was given an opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders brief, he has not
done so, nor has the State filed a brief in response to the Anders brief.
After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on
the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this
court must independently examine the record to see if any arguable ground may
be raised on the appellant’s behalf. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We also consider the briefs and any pro se response.
2
See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. Only after we conduct our own
examination to determine whether counsel has correctly assessed the case may
we grant his motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109
S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).
We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the record. We agree with
counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing
in the record that arguably might 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) (allowing unpublished memorandum opinion
in the context of an appeal for which appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief
and the court of appeals has agreed that the appeal is in fact wholly frivolous).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial
court’s judgments.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: July 26, 2018
3