Opinion
NO. 02-17-00065-CR
07-26-2018
VERBA FELICIA PETERSON APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1460794R MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant Verba Felicia Peterson appeals her third-degree-felony conviction for falsely holding herself out as a lawyer. After a grand jury indicted her for that offense, she pleaded guilty. While entering the plea, she waived constitutional and statutory rights and judicially confessed to committing the crime. After the trial court received a presentence investigation report and conducted a sentencing hearing, it sentenced her to three years' confinement. She brought this appeal.
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.122(a)-(b) (West 2016).
Peterson's appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief under Anders v. California, representing that Peterson has no "nonfrivolous basis upon which to appeal her conviction and sentence." 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel's brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406-12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (analyzing the effect of Anders). We gave Peterson an opportunity to file a pro se response to counsel's brief, and on January 11, 2018, she filed a document that we construe as her response. The State has not filed a brief.
Once an appellant's court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we must independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 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 Peterson's pro se response. We agree with counsel that this appeal is 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.
On June 21, 2018, Peterson filed a letter that we construe as a motion for an appeal bond. We deny that motion as moot.
/s/ Wade Birdwell
WADE BIRDWELL
JUSTICE PANEL: SUDDERTH, C.J.; PITTMAN and BIRDWELL, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: July 26, 2018