Damaris Lavar Trass 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 NO. 2-08-225-CR DAMARIS LAVAR TRASS APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ------------ FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 -----------After pleading true to violating the conditions of his deferred adjudication community supervision, appellant Damaris Lavar Trass appeals from the trial court s judgment adjudicating his guilt and sentencing him to nine years 1 ¦ See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. confinement for aggravated robbery causing bodily injury to an elderly person. 2 We affirm. Appellant s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel avers that, in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California 3 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. We gave appellant the opportunity to file a pro se brief, and he has not filed one. The State also has not filed a brief. Once an appellant s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record.4 Only then may we grant counsel s motion to withdraw.5 2 ¦ See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(3)(A) (Vernon 2003). 3 ¦ 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). 4 ¦ 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.). 5 ¦ 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 might arguably support the appeal.6 Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court s judgment. PER CURIAM PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: June 4, 2009 6 ¦ 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). 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.
