COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-10-00130-CR

RENARD WRIGHT APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------ FROM THE 158TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ------------ Appellant Renard Wright appeals his conviction for one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child and one count of indecency with a child.

Wright’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 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We gave Wright an opportunity to file a pro se brief, and he has done so. The State also filed a response.

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, counsel’s brief, Wright’s pro se brief, and the State’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, 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.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: October 20, 2011