COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-10-00340-CR

ARSENIO LEYVA APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------ FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ------------ Appellant Arsenio Leyva appeals his conviction of two counts of indecency with a child and three counts of aggravated sexual assault. Leyva’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 U.S. 738, 87 S.

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

Ct. 1396 (1967). Leyva had the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he has not done so. The State 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. 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 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, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: July 19, 2012