Trina Bishop v. The State of TexasAppeal from 211th District Court of Denton County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-12-00506-CR TRINA BISHOP APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE -----------FROM THE 211TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM OPINION1 -----------Appellant Trina Bishop appeals her conviction for state-jail felony theft upon the revocation of her deferred adjudication community supervision. Bishop s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Bishop had the opportunity to file a pro se brief but did not do so; the State 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. 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 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. BOB MCCOY JUSTICE PANEL: MCCOY, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: June 20, 2013 2

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.