### NUM BER 13-09- 0031 3-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

FID EL F LOR ES R OJAS, A pp ellan t,

v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 2 4th D istrict Co urt of Vict oria Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Garza M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lan t F ide l Fl or es Roj as appeal s f ro m his conv ic ti on f or the off ense of unlaw

ful poss ess ion of

a fir ear m by

a felo n. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. §§ 1 2.34, 46.0 4( a) ( Ver non Supp. 2009)

. On Dec ember 21, 2 005, appel lan t pl eaded g uil ty to the o ff ense. Ap pel lan t

w as sent enced to ten y ears o f communit y su per v is ion and ass ess ed a $3,000 fine. On May1, 200 9, th e trial court de term ined that app ellanthad vi o la t e d t he te rms of hisAt t he h ear i ng o n t he St at e' s m ot i on t o r ev oke, app el l ant pl eaded " t r ue" t o on e v i ol at i on o ft he 1 c o n d itio n s o fh is c o m m u n ity s u p e r v is io n a n d "n o t tr u e " to th e r e m a in in g v io la tio n s . A f te r h e a r in g te s tim o n y, i n c l u d i n g th a t o f a p p e l l a n t, th e tri a l c o u rt f o u n d th a t a p p e l l a n t v i o l a te d tw o o th e r c o n d i ti o n s o f h i s c o m m u n i ty super v i si on. 2 communi ty

su per v is ion

. The c our

t r ev oked appel lan t' s p ro bati on and sentence d hi m to 1 ten y ears i n the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. Con cl udi ng that appel lan t' s "a ppeal i n thi s c ase is w it hout meri t and fri v olo us, "
couns el filed an And ers br ief i n w hic h he re v iew ed th e merit s, o r lac k t her eof, of the ap pe al

. W e affi r m. I. Compliance w ith An der s v. Cal if or ni a Pursuan t t o 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 ourt, s ta ti n g that he has "dil ig entl y

se ar ched the record .

. . and [has ] r esear ched the l aw appl ic abl e to the f act s a nd is sues " and in hi s p ro fessi onal opi nio n, "no r ev er si ble er ro r is r eflect ed by the re cord." Af t e r d is c u s s in g t h e co n t e s t e d h e a ri n g, t h e p u n is h m e n ta s s e s s e d , a n d a p p li c a b le la w,
couns el conc lud e s that "no arg uabl e factual or ev ide nti ar

y i ss ues ar e di sc los ed by the
re cord i n thi s c ase w hic h w oul d amo u n t to r ev er si ble er ro r. " See In r e Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d 403, 407 n.9 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008) ( or ig . proceed ing ) (“ In Tex as, an And ers br ief
nee d no t specif ically

advance ‘arguab le’ point s of error i f coun sel f inds none , but it must pr ov ide r e co rd referenc es to t he facts and pr ocedu ra l his tor y and setout per

ti nent leg al author it ies .” ) (c it ing Hawki ns v. State , 112 S.W .3d 340, 343- 44 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no pet .) ); Staf

for d v. State , 813 S.W .2d 5 03, 5 10 n. 3 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991) ( en ban c). In c ompli ance w it h Hi gh v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 8 07, 8 13 ( Tex . C ri m. App. [Pa nel Op. ] 1 9 7 8 ), a p p e ll a n t ' s co u n s e l h a s , t h u s , c a re f u ll y d is c u s s e d wh y, u n d e r c o n t ro ll in g a u t h o ri t y,T he T exas C our t of C r i m i nal Appeal s has hel d t hat “ t he pr o se r esponse nee d no t com pl y wi t h t he 2 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 athe r, t he res po ns e s ho ul d i de nti fy fo r 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 shou l d con si der i n de ci di ng whet her th e case pre s en t s an y m eri t ori ou s i s s ue s
. ” I n re Schulm an , 252 S

. W

. 3d 403, 409 n. 23 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 8) ( or i g. pr oceedi ng) ( 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 ther e ar e no er ro rs i n the tr ial cour t' s jud g ment. Cou nsel has infor med thi s Cou rt that he has: ( 1) forw ar ded a copy of the b ri ef and hi s req uestto w it hdr aw as co unsel to appel lan t; and ( 2) i nformed app ell ant o f his r ig ht t o r ev iew the re cord and file a pro s e r espon se. 2 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 a t 409 n.23

. Mo re than an a deq uate per iod of ti me has passed, and appel lan t has not fil ed a pr o s e r espon se. Se e In re Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 409

. II. I nd epen den t Rev iew Upo n r ecei v ing an And ers bri ef, thi s Cour

t must c onduc t a full ex aminat ion of all the pr oceed ing s t o deter mine w hether the cas e is w hol ly fri v olo us. Pen son v. Oh io , 488 U .S. 75, 8 0 (1988)

. W e hav e rev iew ed the entir e reco rd and couns el' s b ri ef, and w e hav e found not hing tha t w ould arguably supp ort an a ppe al. See Bleds oe v. St ate , 178 S.W .3d 8 24, 8 2 6

- 2 8 ( Te x
. C r i m. A p p
. 2005) (“ D u e t o t h e n a t u r e o f And ers br iefs, by

i ndi cat ing i n the opi nio n t h a t i t c o n s i d e r e d t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e b r i e fs a n d r e v i e w e d t h e r e c o r d for
rev ersible error but f oun d no ne, the cou rt of app eals met th e requireme nt of Te x as Rule of A ppel lat e Pro ce d u re 47.1 .” ); Sta fford , 813 S.W .2d a t 509

. Acc or din g ly , w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. III
. Mo ti on t o Wit hd raw In ac cordance 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

a s co 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 a t 408 n.17 ( ci ti ng Jef fer 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 a ppeal i s fr iv olo us, heN o subst i t ut e counsel wi l l be appoi nt ed. Shoul d ap pel l ant wi sh t o see k f ur t her r ev i ew oft hi s case 3 by t he T ex as C ou rt of C ri m i na l A pp ea l s , he m us t ei t he r r etai n a n a tto rn e y to fi l e a pe t i t i on for di s c ret 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 fe 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 r ev 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 th e re 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 mu s tw i t h d r a w

fro m r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t

. T o w i t h d r a w fro m r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , the appoi nted attor ney

mustfil e a mot ion to w it hdr aw ac compani e d b y a b rief sh ow ing the appel lat e c our

t t hat t he appe al is fri v olo us” ) (c it ati ons omit ted) ). W e g ra nt c ounse l’ s mot ion to w it hdr aw . W it hin f iv e day s of the date of this C our

t’ s o pin ion , c ounse l is or der ed to se nd a cop y of the op inion a nd jud gmen t to ap pellan t and to advise app ellant of his ri ght to f ile
a p e t it io n fo r d is c re t io n a ry r e vie w. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 48.4; see als o In re Sc hul m an , 252 3 S.W .3d a t 412 n.35 ; Ex par te O wens , 206 S.W .3d 670 , 673 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06).

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Del iv er ed and filed the 11th day of Ma rc h, 20 10.