eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2015-05

Brien Arthur Mason v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
 
  •                        COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-13-00486-CR
BRIEN ARTHUR MASON                                               APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                    STATE
----------
FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1329319R
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND ORDER
----------
Appellant Brien Arthur Mason pled guilty to violation of civil commitment
requirements for sexually violent predators. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann.
§ 841.085 (West 2010).     A jury assessed his punishment at ten years’
confinement and a $10,000 fine. We affirm.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel asserts that, in
his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous.    Counsel’s brief and motion
meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record showing why there are no arguable grounds for relief.
    386 U.S. 738
    , 744,
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    , 1400 (1967); see Stafford v. State,
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 510–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).2 Appellant filed a pro se brief. The
State did not submit a brief.
After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on
the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this
court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if
there is any arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf.
    Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511
    . When performing this evaluation, we consider the record, the
arguments raised in the Anders brief, and any issues Appellant raises in his pro
se brief. In re Schulman,
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig.
proceeding).    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).
2
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed his Anders motion and brief
before the issuance of Kelly v. State on June 25, 2014; accordingly, he did not—
as Kelly recommended—provide Appellant with a pro se motion requesting
access to the record.
    436 S.W.3d 313
    , 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Instead,
he instructed Appellant to contact this court if he wanted to review the record. By
letter dated March 14, 2014, we asked the trial court to make the record available
to Appellant. In his pro se brief, Appellant makes no complaint regarding not
having access to the record.
2
We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief, Appellant’s response, and the
appellate record. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and
without merit; we find nothing in the appellate record that arguably might support
this appeal. Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
/s/ Anne Gardner
ANNE GARDNER
JUSTICE
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: May 28, 2015
3