Allen Lee Polk v. The State of TexasAppeal from 213th District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-11-00467-CR NO. 02-11-00468-CR NO. 02-11-00469-CR ALLEN LEE POLK APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 ---------Appellant Allen Lee Polk appeals the judgments the trial court rendered against him after it accepted his guilty pleas to three theft offenses under $1,500, enhanced by prior convictions. 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 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 record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. We provided Appellant the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did not do so. The State also did not file 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 and counsel s brief. We agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record 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. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). 2 PER CURIAM PANEL: GARDNER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: July 3, 2013 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.
