Tommy Jerold Hutchings, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 1 of Tarrant County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-07-349-CR TOMMY JEROLD HUTCHINGS, JR. APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ------------ FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 -----------Tommy Jerold Hutchings, Jr. appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine one gram or more but less than four grams. Hutchings s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In his motion, counsel avers that he has conducted a professional evaluation of the record and, after a thorough review 1 ¦ See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. of the applicable law, has reached the conclusion that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced to support an appeal of this cause and that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 741, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922 23 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Hutchings was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief on his own behalf, but he chose not to do so. In our duties as a 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, 904 S.W.2d at 923. 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 appellate record and counsel s brief. We agree that the 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, we grant the motion to 2 withdraw filed by Hutchings s appellate counsel and affirm the trial court s judgment. PER CURIAM PANEL: HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: October 16, 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.
