1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 07- 364- CR M ANU E LR . M UR I L L O AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 297TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- -- ---- A p p e l l a n t M a n u e l R . M u ri l l o en tere d an o p e n p l e a o f gu i l ty to tw o co u n ts ofi ndecen cy w i t h a c h il d b y contactand el ect ed t o have t he j ur y asses s puni sh m ent . The j ur y as se ss ed puni sh m ent at t w o yea r s’ con f i nem ent on t he f i r stco untan d f ourye ar s’ co m m uni t y s upe r vi si on on t he se con d c ount . The tri a l c o u rt s e n te n c e d M u ri l l o i n a c c o rd a n c e w i th th e j u ry ’s v e rd i c t.2 ... 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S . C t. 1 3 9 6 (1 9 6 7 ). 2 M ur i l l o’ s court - appo i nt ed appel l at e coun sel has f i l ed a m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw as co uns el an d a b ri e f i n s upportoft hatm ot i on. Couns el ’ s br i efan d m ot i on m e e t t h e req u i rem e n ts o f A n der sv. Ca l

ifo rn ia 2by pr esent i ng a pr of essi onal eva l uat i on oft he r ec or d dem ons t r at i ng w hy t her e a r e n o a r gua bl e g r oundsf or r el i ef . M ur i l l o w as gi ven t he opport uni t y t o f i l e a pr o se br i ef , buthe di d notdo so . A s t he r evi ew i ng cou rt , w e m us tco nduc tan i nde pen den tev al uat i on of t he r ec or d t o de t er m i ne w h e th e rco uns el i s cor r ec ti n de t er m i ni ng t hatt he a p p e a l i s fri v o l o u s . S e e S taffo rd v. S tate , 8 1 3 S . W . 2 d 5 0 3 , 5 1 1 ( T e x . C r i m. A pp. 1 9 9 1 ); Ma ys v. S tate , 9 0 4 S .W .2 d 9 2 0 , 9 2 3 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 1 9 9 5 , n o p e t.). O n l yth e n m a yw e g ra n t c o u n s e l ’s m o ti o n to w i th d ra w . S ee Pen s o nv. O h io , 48 8 U . S . 75 , 82 –8 3, 10 9 S . C t . 34 6, 35 1 ( 19 88 ) . Because M ur i l l o e nt er ed an ope n pl ea ofgui l t y, ouri nde pen den tr evi ew f orpot ent i al er r or i s l i m i t ed t o potent i al j ur i sdi ct i onal def ect s, t he vol untar i ness of M ur i l l o’ s pl ea, er r or t hati s noti nde pen den tofan d s upport s t he j udgm entofgui l t , an d e r r or o c c u rri n g a fte r e n tryo f th e g u i l typ l e a . S e eMo n rea l v. S tate , 99 S . W . 3d 615, 6 2 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ); Yo ung v. S tate , 8 S. W . 3d 656, 666– 67 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ).3

W e have car ef ul l y r evi ew ed t he r ecor d and coun sel ’ s br i ef . W e agr ee w i t h c ouns el t ha t th i s ap pea l i s w hol l y f r i vol ous an d w i t houtm er i t . W e f i nd n o th i n g i n th e re c o rd th a t m i g h t a rg u a b l y s u p p o rt th e a p p e a l . See Bl eds oe v. S tate, 1 7 8 S .W .3 d 8 2 4 , 8 2 7

– 2 8 ( T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); ac cord Meza v. S ta te, 2 0 6 S .W .3 d 6 8 4 , 6 8 5 n .6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). W e t her ef or e g r ant c o u n se l ’s m o ti o n to w i th d raw an d affi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

SU E W A LKER J U S T I C E PA N EL: D A U PH I N O T, H O LM A N , an d W A LKER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Oct ob e r16, 2008