eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2017-12

Johnny Skipper Matthews v. State ( 2017 )


Menu:
 
  •                         COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-17-00080-CR
JOHNNY SKIPPER MATTHEWS                                           APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                     STATE
----------
FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. CR13450
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
A jury found Appellant Johnny Skipper Matthews guilty of one count of
aggravated sexual assault of a child and three counts of indecency with a child
by contact. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2017), § 21.11
(West Supp. 2017). The jury assessed Matthews’s punishment at twenty years’
confinement on the single count of aggravated sexual assault of a child and at
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
ten years’ confinement on each of the three counts of indecency with a child by
contact.   The trial court sentenced Matthews in accordance with the jury’s
recommendation and ordered the sentences to run concurrently.           Matthews
timely perfected this appeal.
Matthews’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. See
    386 U.S. 738
    ,
    87 S. Ct. 1396 
    (1967). In compliance with
Kelly v. State, counsel notified Matthews of his motion to withdraw, provided him
a copy of the brief, informed him of his right to file a pro se response, informed
him of his pro se right to seek discretionary review should this court hold the
appeal is frivolous, and took concrete measures to facilitate Matthews’s review of
the appellate record.      See
    436 S.W.3d 313
    , 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Although given the opportunity, Matthews did not file a response on his own
behalf, and the State did not file a brief.
As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the
record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is
frivolous. See Stafford v. State,
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);
Mays v. State,
    904 S.W.2d 920
    , 923 (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).
2
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 arguably might support an appeal. See 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 judgments.
/s/ Sue Walker
SUE WALKER
JUSTICE
PANEL: SUDDERTH, C.J.; WALKER and KERR, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: December 7, 2017
3