Albino Perez Salas v. State, No. 02-11-00432-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 17, 2013). · Go Syfert
Albino Perez Salas v. State, No. 02-11-00432-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 17, 2013). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Albino Perez Salas
v.
State
02-11-00432-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Jan 17, 2013.
Unpublished opinion
Published
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00432-CR
Albino Perez Salasv.The State of Texas
From County Criminal Court No. 6of Tarrant County (1240578)January 17, 2013Per Curiam(nfp)
JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00432-CR

ALBINO PEREZ SALAS APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 6 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Albino Perez Salas was convicted following a jury trial and sentenced to six months’ incarceration for the misdemeanor offense of indecent exposure. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.08(a) (West 2011).

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, this 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 and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for appeal. 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.). This court gave Appellant the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, but he did not do so. The State did not file a brief.

Once 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, we are obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if there is any arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511; 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 and counsel’s brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might support any appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Accordingly, we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: January 17, 2013