Clarence Wayne Snodgrass v. The State of TexasAppeal from 396th District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-11-00493-CR CLARENCE WAYNE SNODGRASS APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 ---------Appellant Clarence Wayne Snodgrass appeals the sentence the trial court imposed after adjudicating him guilty of injury to a child. 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. Counsel states in the brief that in his professional opinion this appeal is frivolous and 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 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 did not file a response. 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 response to 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. 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. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). 2 PER CURIAM PANEL: GARDNER, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: July 11, 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.
