Anthony Mark Klish v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2 of Tarrant County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-11-00519-CR NO. 02-11-00520-CR ANTHONY MARK KLISH APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ------------ FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM OPINION1 -----------Appellant Anthony Mark Klish appeals his convictions and ten year concurrent prison sentences imposed by the court after he pled guilty without a plea bargain to two charges of burglary of a habitation. We affirm. Appellant s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, accompanied by a brief in support of that motion. In the 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. brief, counsel states that in his professional opinion these appeals are frivolous and without merit. Counsel s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the records demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. Appellant filed a pro se response to the Anders brief. The State has filed a letter brief. Once an appellant s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the grounds that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922 23 (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). We have carefully reviewed the records, counsel s brief, Appellant s response, and the State s letter brief. We agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the records that might arguably support the appeals. 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 judgments. PER CURIAM 2 PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and MEIER, J. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: October 18, 2012 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.
