### NUM BER 13-07- 453- 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 - 

## EDI NBURG

LL OYD C A RL TON PA RK S, A pp ellan t,

v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 2 84t h Dist rict C ou rt of M on tg ome ry

C ou nt y , T exas



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON
B ef o re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G ar za , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la

On Ma y 18, 2007, appel lan t, Llo y d Car lt on Par ks , ple ad g uil ty to the off ens e of ind ecenc y

w it h a c hil d by

se x ual co ntac t. See T EX

. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 21.1 1 (a )(1) (V er non 2003 ). After a puni shment hear ing , t he tr ial co urt s entenc ed appe ll ant t o ten
y ear s’ confine ment in the Ins ti tuti onal Di v is ion of t he Dep artment of C ri minal Ju st ice.2

Con cl udi ng that "ther e ar e no meri tor iou s i ss ues f o r a p p eal ," app ell ant' s c ounse l filed a br i ef i n w hi c h he r ev i ew ed t he me r i ts , or l ac k t he r eo f, of t he a pp ea l

. W e affi r m. I. C ompli ance w it h And ers v. California Appel lan t' s c our

t- appoi nted couns el filed an And ers br ief in w hic h he has conc lud ed that ther e ar e no appeal abl e i ss ues for th is C our t t o c onsi der

. See Ande rs v. C alifornia , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 7 4 4 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. A p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f m e e t s t h e r e q u i r e me n t s o f And ers

. See id . at 744- 45; Hi

gh v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 8 07, 8 12 ( Tex . C ri m. App. [ Pa n e l Op .] 1978)

. In compl ian ce w it h And ers , f ollowi ng his r eview of the cou rt's file a n d t h e t ra n scripts, his

re sear ch, and his cor re spond ence w it h appel lan t, couns el pr esent ed a professi onal evaluation of

the reco rd including, am ong oth er t hings, a revi ew of g rand jury

procee dings,
pr e- tr ial moti ons, r esear ch and i nv est igati on, c ompetenc y , s entenc ing , r ig ht t o pr esent

ev ide nce dur ing the g uil t/i nnoce nce and pun is hment s tag e s, and r ig ht t o appea l. See And ers , 386 U.S. at 74 4; Cur ri e v . St ate , 516 S.W .2d 684, 684 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1974) ; see als o H igh , 573 S.W .2d a t 812

. Cou nsel has i nformed t his C our t t hat h e has r ev iew e d the appel lat e r ecor d and

conc lud es ther e ar e no ar g uabl e gr ounds f or r ev er sal

. He has als o i nformed t his C our t t hat he p rov ided app ellant with a co py of t he transcripts in his case and n otif ied app ellant o f his ri g ht t o r ev iew

the re cor d and to fil e a p ro se r espon se to c ounse l' s b ri ef and moti on to

w it hdr aw

. See Ande rs , 386 U. S. at 74 4- 45; see als o St affor d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 5 03, 5 0 9 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91) (en ba nc); H igh , 573 S.W .2d at 813. More tha n t h ir t y d a ys hav e pas sed, and no pr o s e br ief has been filed

. II. Inde pendent R ev iew T h e U n it e d St a te s S u p re m e Co u rt ad vise d ap p e lla te co u rt s t h a t u p o n rec e ivin g a "friv olo us appeal " bri e f , th e y mus t c onduc t "a full ex aminat ion of all the pr oceed ing s t o3

deci de 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) ; see Ybar ra v. Sta te , 93 S. W .3d 922 , 926 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 2 0 03, no pe t.). Accordin gly , w e ha v e caref ully rev iew ed th e record an d ha v e f oun d no thing tha t w ould

ar g uabl y su ppor t an appeal

. See Bl edsoe v. St ate , 178 S.W .3d 8 24, 8 26 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 200 5); Staff

ord , 813 S.W .2d at 509

. W e a gr ee wi th cou nsel th at th e ap pea l is w holly friv olo us and w it hout meri t. See B led soe , 17 8 S .W .3 d at 827- 28 ( "Due to the n atur e of And ers b r i e fs , b y

i n d i c a t i n g i n t h e op i n i o n th a t i t co n s i d e r e d th e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e b r i e fs and r ev iew ed the recor d f or rev er si ble er ro r but found n one, the c our t of appeal s met the requireme nts of

Te x as Rule of

Appe llate Proce dure 47.1 ."). III . C oncl usi on The j udg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med. Addi ti onal ly , app ell ant' s c ounse l' s mot ion to w it hdr aw

as appel lat e c ounse l is her eby g ra nted. W e or der

co unsel to noti fy appel lan t of the di spos it ion of thi s a ppeal and of the av ail abi li ty of dis cr e ti o n a ry

r ev iew

. See In re K.D

. , S.D., an d J.R. , 127 S.W .2d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 3, no pet. ) (ci ti n g Ex par

te Wil son , 956 S.W .2d 25, 27 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 199 7) (e n ban c) (pe r curiam)).

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e

Do not p ubl is h. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 6th d ay

of June, 2008.