From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Randles v. State

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
Jul 23, 2015
NO. 02-14-00152-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 23, 2015)

Opinion

NO. 02-14-00152-CRNO. 02-14-00153-CR

07-23-2015

DONNELL JUNIOR RANDLES APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE


FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NOS. 1179039D, 1312909R
MEMORANDUM OPINION

In trial cause number 1179039D, the trial court revoked Appellant Donnell Junior Randles's community supervision upon his plea of true to the State's allegation that he violated his community supervision and sentenced him to ten years' confinement for the underlying offense of felony DWI. In trial cause number 1312909R, Randles entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and the trial court found the enhancement allegation true and sentenced Randles to twenty-five years' confinement.

Randles'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, these appeals are frivolous. 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. See 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). This court informed Randles that he could file a pro se response to the Anders 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. We agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. 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 judgments.

/s/ Bill Meier

BILL MEIER

JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and MEIER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: July 23, 2015

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.


Summaries of

Randles v. State

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
Jul 23, 2015
NO. 02-14-00152-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 23, 2015)
Case details for

Randles v. State

Case Details

Full title:DONNELL JUNIOR RANDLES APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

Court:COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

Date published: Jul 23, 2015

Citations

NO. 02-14-00152-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 23, 2015)