COURT OF APPEALS

                                                 SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                                 FORT WORTH

                                        NO. 2-07-283-CR

THOMAS ISSAC SEATON                                                     APPELLANT

                                                   V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                                STATE

                                              ------------

           FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

                                              ------------

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION^[1]

                                              ------------

Appellant Thomas Issac Seaton entered an open plea of guilty to the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm.  The trial court found Seaton guilty and assessed his punishment at ten years= confinement.

Seaton=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^[2] by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.  Seaton was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did not do so.

As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 1995, no pet.).  Only then may we grant counsel=s motion to withdraw.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82B83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).  Because Seaton entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential error is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Seaton=s plea, error that is not independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error occurring after entry of the guilty plea.  See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666B67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

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 might arguably support the appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827B28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  We therefore grant counsel=s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court=s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL F:  HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  April 24, 2008