COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-12-00035-CR

Eddie Calvin Dorris, II § From the 396th District Court § of Tarrant County (1161027D) v. § February 14, 2013 § Opinion by Justice McCoy The State of Texas § (nfp) JUDGMENT This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By_________________________________ Justice Bob McCoy COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-12-00034-CR NO. 02-12-00035-CR

EDDIE CALVIN DORRIS, II APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------ FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ------------ Appellant Eddie Calvin Dorris II appeals his two convictions for assault after the trial court revoked his deferred adjudication community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of both offenses, and sentenced him to ten years’ confinement in each case concurrently but consecutive to his sentence for a third assault conviction.

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

Dorris’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. Ct. 1396 (1967). Dorris had the opportunity to file a pro se brief and has 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, counsel’s brief, and Dorris’s pro se 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.

BOB MCCOY JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MCCOY and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: February 14, 2013