COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-12-00353-CR

BAILEE GIBSON APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 7 OF TARRANT COUNTY ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 ---------- After the State charged appellant with resisting arrest, search, or transportation, 2 appellant, with the assistance of appointed counsel and pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, waived her constitutional and statutory rights, pled guilty, and received a conviction and a sentence of thirty days’ confinement.

Appellant brought this appeal.

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.03(a) (West 2011).

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 after a thorough examination of the record, he can find “no points of error that can be legitimately supported.” 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, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (analyzing the effect of Anders). We gave appellant an opportunity to file a pro se brief, but she did not do so. The State did not file 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, we must independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Alexander v. State, 301 S.W.3d 361, 363 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, 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 the 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 2 684, 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: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MCCOY and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: May 30, 2013