Joseph Albert Durant v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3 of Tarrant County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NOS. 2-07-403-CR 2-07-404-CR JOSEPH ALBERT DURANT APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ------------ FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 -----------Appellant Joseph Albert Durant entered an open plea of guilty to two charges of burglary of a building and also pleaded guilty to the enhancements. The trial court found Durant guilty and assessed his punishment at ten years confinement in each case to run concurrently. 1 ¦ See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 Durant 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 2 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. Durant was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did not do so. 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). Because Durant entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential error is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Durant s plea, error that is not independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error occurring after entry of the guilty plea. See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666 67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). 2 ¦ 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). 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 might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); accord Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We therefore grant counsel s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court s judgment. SUE WALKER JUSTICE PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: September 4, 2008 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
