Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2009

Lonney Roberto Antonio Brown A/K/A Lonney R. Brown v. State

Lonney Roberto Antonio Brown A/K/A Lonney R. Brown v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided May 28, 2009

Lonney Roberto Antonio Brown A/K/A Lonney R. Brown v. State

Opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                             COURT OF APPEALS

                                              SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                              FORT WORTH

 

 

                                      NO. 2-08-346-CR

 

 

LONNEY ROBERTO ANTONIO BROWN                                 APPELLANT

A/K/A LONNEY R. BROWN

 

                                                 V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                             STATE

 

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

 

         FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

 

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

 

                              MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

 

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

After pleading true to having violated the terms and conditions of his deferred adjudication community supervision, appellant Lonney Roberto Antonio Brown a/k/a Lonney R. Brown appeals his conviction and ten-year-and-one-day sentence for burglary of a habitation.  We affirm.


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, the appeal is frivolous.  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.  We gave appellant the opportunity to file a pro se brief, and he has not filed one.  The State also has not filed 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.[3]  Only then may we grant counsel=s motion to withdraw.[4]


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.[5]  Accordingly, we grant counsel=s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court=s judgment.

 

PER CURIAM

 

 

PANEL:  CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and MEIER, JJ.

 

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

 

DELIVERED:  May 28, 2009


[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

[3]See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922B23 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 1995, no pet.).

[4]See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82B83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

[5]See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827B28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

↑