### NUM BER 13-09- 0030 7-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I – E DI NBURG

JER RY LE E M UN OZ, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 37 7t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of Vict oria Co un ty , T exas . 

## MEM ORA N D U M OPINION B ef o re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , B en av id es , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s Appel lan t, Jer ry

Lee Mu noz , w as found g uil ty of assaul t i nv olv ing famil y v iol ence. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22.01( b) (2 ) ( Ver non Supp. 2009)

. He w as sent enced to four y ear s’ i mpri sonmenti n the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce— Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion

.T he T exas Cour t of C r i m i nal Appeal s has hel d t hat “ t he p r o se r esponse nee d no t com pl y wi t h t he 1 rul es of ap pe l l ate pro c ed ure i n o rde r t o b e c on s i de red

. R ath e r, t he res po ns e s ho ul d i de nti fy for t he co urt t hose i ssues whi ch t he i ndi gent app el l ant bel i ev es t he co ur t sho ul d con si der i n de ci di ng whet her t he ca se 2 Mu noz ’s appel lat e c ounse l, co n clu d in g t hat "t her e ar e no ar g uabl e g ro unds to be adv anced on a ppeal ," fil ed an A n d e r ’s brief in w hich he rev iew ed th e me rits, or lack th er eo f, of t he a pp ea l

. W e affi r m. I. D I S CUS S I ON Pur suantto And ers v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 744 (1967 ), appe llant’s
cour t- appoi nted appel lat e c ounse l has filed a br ief w it h thi s C our t, stat ing thathi s r ev iew of the r ecord yielded no g ro unds or er ro r upon w hic h an appeal ca n be pr edi cat ed. Al thoug h counsel ’s br ief does not adv ance any ar g uabl e g ro unds of err or , i t doe s p re sent a pr ofessi onal ev alu ati on of the re cor d demonstr ati ng w hy there ar e no ar g uabl e g ro unds to be adv anced on ap peal

. See I n r e Sc hul m an , 25 2 S. W .3 d 40 3, 4 07 n .9 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2008) ( “I n Tex as, an And ers br ief need not spec ific all y adv ance ‘ar g uabl e’ poi nts of
er ro r if co unsel find s n o n e , b u t it must pr ov ide r ecor d r eferenc es to t he facts and p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r

y a n d s e t o u t p e rt i n e n t l e g a l a u t h o r i t i e s
. ” ) ( ci ti ng H awki ns v. Stat e , 112 S.W .3d 3 40, 3 43-4 4 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no p et.) ); Staf for d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 5 03, 5 10 n. 3 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991)

. In compl ian ce w it h Hi

gh v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 807, 813 (Tex

. Cr im. App. [Panel Op. ] 197 8), app ellant 's co unse l h as caref ully discussed w hy, unde r controlling autho rity , the re
are n o e rr o rs i n the trial court's jud gmen t. Counse l has inf orme d this Court th at he has: (1 ) ex amined the re cor d and found no ar g uabl e g ro unds to ad v ance on appe al; ( 2) se rv ed
a c opy of the b ri ef and co unsel ’s moti on to w it hdr aw on a ppel lan t; and ( 3) i nformed app ellant of

his ri ght to rev iew

the reco rd and to f ile a p ro se resp onse w ithin th irty days. 1pre s en t s an y m eri t ori ou s i s s ue s
. ” I n r e Schul m an , 252 S. W

. 3d 4 03, 409 n. 23 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 8) ( quot i ng W i l s o n v . S ta te , 95 5 S

. W

. 2d 69 3, 69 6-9 7 (T ex
. A pp
. –W ac o 1 99 7, no pe t

. ))

. 3 See Ande rs , 386 U .S. at 74 4; Staff ord , 813 S. W .2d a t 510 n.3; see als o In re Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d at 409 n.23 . A suf f icient tim e has passe d, and Mun oz ha s not f iled a pro se
re spons e. II. I NDEPE NDENT R EVI EW Upo n r ecei v ing an And ers br ief, w e mustco nducta full ex aminat ion of all the pr oceed ing s to deter mine w hether the cas e i s w hol ly

fri v olo us. Pen son v. Oh io , 488 U .S. 75, 8 0 ( 1988)

. W e hav e r ev iew ed th e ent ir e r ecor d a nd c ounse l' s b ri ef and hav e found not hing tha t w ould arguably support an app eal. Se e Bledsoe v. Sta te , 178 S.W .3d 8 24, 8 2 6
- 2 8 ( Te x
. C r i m. A p p
. 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ D u e t o t h e n a t u r e o f And ers br iefs, b y in d icating i n the opi nio n tha t i t c onsi der ed th e i ss ues ra is ed i n the br iefs and r ev iew ed th e r ecor d for
rev ersible error but f oun d no ne, the cou rt of app eals m et the requireme nt of Te x as Rule of Appel lat e Pr ocedu re 47.1 .” ); Sta fford , 813 S.W .2d a t 5 0 9

. A cc o rding ly , w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. III
. M OT I ON TO W IT H D R AW In ac cor dance w it h And ers , app ell ant’ s a ttor ney has as ked thi s C our

t for per mis si on to w it hdr aw

as c o u n se l for appe ll ant. See Ande rs , 386 U .S. at 74 4; see also In re Schu lm an , 252 S.W .3d at 408 n.17 (c it ing Je ffer y v . St ate , 9 0 3 S

. W

. 2 d 7 7 6 , 7 7 9 -8 0 (T e x. App.–D all as 1995, no pet .) ( noti ng that“ [i ]f an attor ney beli ev es the appeal i s fr iv olo us, he must w it hdr aw

from r epr esent ing the appel lan t. To w it hdr aw from r epr esent ati on, t he appoi nted attor ney

mustfil e a mot ion to w it hdr aw ac compani ed by

a b rie f s h o w ing the app ellate court tha t the app eal is f riv olou s.”) ( c it ation s omitt ed)). W e grant coun sel’sN o sub st i t ut e cou nsel wi l l be appoi nt ed. Shoul d ap pel l ant wi sh t o see k f ur t her re v i ew of t hi s case 2 by th e T exas Cour t of C r i m i nal Appeal s, he m ust ei t her r et ai n an at t or ney t o f i l e a pet i t i on f or di scr et i on ary r e v ie w o r f ile a p r o s e p e tit io n f o r d is c r e tio n a r y r e v ie w . A n y p e tit io n f o r d is c r e tio n a r y r e v ie w m u s t b e f ile d w ith in th ir ty d a ys f r o m th e d a te o f e ith e r th is o p in io n o r th e la s t t im e ly m o tio n f o r r e h e a r in g th a t w a s o v e r r u le d b y th is C o u rt. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 2. Any pet i t i on f or di scr et i onar y re v i ew m ust be f i l ed wi t h t hi s C our t , af t er whi ch i t w i l l b e fo rw a rd e d to th e T e x a s C o u rt o f C rim i n a l A p p e a l s
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 3; 68. 7. Any pet i t i on f or d i s c re ti o n a ry re v i e w s h o u l d c o m p l y w i th t h e r e q u i re m e n ts o f R u l e 6 8 .4 o f th e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a te P ro c e d u re
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 4.
4 moti on to w it hdr aw
. W it hin fiv e day s o f the dat e of thi s C our t’ s o pin ion , c ounse l is or der ed to s end a copy of t he opi nio n and jud g ment t o appel lan t and to adv is e appel lan t of hi s r ig ht t o f il e a p e t it io n f o r d is c re t io n a ry r e vi e w. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 48.4; see a lso In re 2 Schu lm an , 252 S.W .3d a t 412 n.35 ; Ex par te O wens , 20 6 S. W .3 d 670, 673 (Tex

. C r i m. App. 2006)

.

_________ _________

________ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e
Do not p ubl is h. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Del iv er ed and filed the 8th d ay of Jul y , 201 0.