Todd Christopher Sweeney v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 371st District Court of Tarrant County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-11-00183-CR TODD CHRISTOPHER SWEENEY APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------- FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------After a jury found Appellant Todd Christopher Sweeney guilty of causing bodily injury to an elderly person, Appellant pled true to habitual offender enhancement paragraphs in the indictment, the trial court sentenced him to thirty years confinement, and he filed a notice of appeal. We affirm. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 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 brief, counsel states that in his professional opinion, this appeal is 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 record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. Appellant filed a pro se response to the Anders brief. The State has not filed a 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 record, counsel s brief, and Appellant 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); 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. PER CURIAM 2 PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: October 11, 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.
