eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2018-07

Millicent Renee Wilson v. State ( 2018 )


Menu:
 
  •                          COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-17-00194-CR
MILLICENT RENEE WILSON                                              APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                        STATE
----------
FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1416629D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Millicent Renee Wilson appeals her conviction and ten-year sentence for
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony enhanced by
a prior felony conviction. She pleaded not guilty to the indictment and elected to
waive a jury. After the trial court found her guilty, she pleaded true to the
enhancement paragraph.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Wilson’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a
brief under Anders v. California, representing that “[t]he record in this case
reveals no grounds that could be argued successfully on appeal.”
    386 U.S. 738
    ,
744–45,
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    , 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the
requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id.; In re
Schulman,
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding).
Wilson filed a pro response to counsel’s brief, and the State filed a letter brief
agreeing with appellant’s attorney’s assessment of the appeal.
Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on
the ground that an 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). 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, appellant’s pro se
response, and the State’s letter brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is
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.
2
/s/ Wade Birdwell
WADE BIRDWELL
JUSTICE
PANEL: KERR, PITTMAN, and BIRDWELL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: July 26, 2018
3