### NUM BER 13-08- 062- CR and 13-0 8-06 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

A DA M C A NT U, 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 1 17t h Dist rict C ou rt of N ue ces Co un ty , 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
Appel lan t, Adam C antu, w as conv ic ted o f the off ense of b u rgla ry in F ebr uar y of 2007 an d se n te n ced to ei g ht y ear s’ co nfinement in pr is on, p ro bated for fiv e y ear s. See T EX

. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 30.02 (V er non Su pp. 2007)

. In Apr il of 20 07, C antu ple aded g uil ty2

to t he of fense of second deg re e r obber y and w as sent enced to a c oncur re nt s entenc e of eig ht y ear s’ co nfinement, pr obated for fiv e y ear s. See i d. § 2 9 .0 2 ( Ver non 200 3)

. In Novembe r of

200 7, th e Sta te f iled a m otion to rev oke Can tu’s prob ation in both cases, alleging tha t Cantu h ad v iolate d his prob ation b y co mm itting a n ew of

f ense , f ailing to report to his prob ation of

f icer, f ailure to pay su pervisi on f ees, and f ailing to appe ar in court f or a

re v iew hear ing

. In J anuar

y of 2008, the t rial c our

t hel d a h ear ing on C antu’ s mot ion s t o

re v oke at w hic h ti me appel lan t pl eaded “t ru e” to the all eg ati ons. The tr ial co urt found t he all eg ati ons to be "tr ue," re v oked Can tu’ s pr obati on, and sent enced him to tw o c oncur re nt sent ences of eig ht y ear s’ confine ment in the Ins ti tuti onal Di v is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. C oncl udi ng that "ther e are n o mer it or iou s i ss ues for appe al, " appel lan t' s c ounse l filed a br ief i n w hic h s he re view ed th e mer it s, or l ack ther eof, of the appeal s. The St ate ag re es w it h couns el' s conc lus ion that ther e ar e no meri tor iou s g ro unds for 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 i n w hic h s he has

conc lud ed th at ther e ar e no appeal abl e is sues for thi s Cou rt to cons ide r. See An ders v. California , 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 me 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; see Hi gh v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 8 07, 8 12 ( Tex . C ri m. App. [Pa nel Op. ] 1978)

. In c ompli ance w it h And ers , foll ow ing her r e view o f

t h e c our

t' s fil e and the tr ansc ri pts , her

r esear ch, and her

co rr espon dence w it h appel lan t, cou nsel pr esent ed a prof ession al evaluation of the reco rd, includin g, am ong oth er things, a rev iew of gr and jury
pr oceed ing s, pr e- tr ial moti ons, re sear ch and i nv est ig ati on, c ompetenc y , s entenc ing , r ig ht to prese nt evidence during the guilt/inno cence a nd pun ishm ent stages, and rig ht to app eal. See Ande rs , 386 U .S. at 74 4; C u r r i e v . St ate , 516 S. W .2d 6 84, 6 84 ( Tex . C ri m. App.3

1974) ; see als o H

igh , 573 S.W .2d a t 812

. Cou nsel has i nformed t h is Cou rt that sh e has r ev iew ed th e appel lat e r ecor ds and conclu des th ere are no arguable ground s f or rev ersal. She has also inf orme d this Court that she pr ov ide d appel lan t w it h a copy of the tr ansc ri pts i n hi s c ase and not ified appel lan t of his ri g ht to re v iew the re cor ds and to file a pr o se re spons e to couns el' 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, 509 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91) (en ba nc); H igh , 5 7 3 S

. W

. 2 d a t 8 1 3

. Mo re t h a 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 Un it e d St a te s S u p re m e Co u rt ad vise d ap p e lla t e c o u r t s t h a t u p o n rec e ivin g a "friv olo us appeal " br ief, t hey must co ndu ct " a f u ll ex aminat ion of all the pr oceed ing s t o deci de 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) ; see Ybar ra v. Sta te , 93 S. W .3d 922 , 926 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Chris ti 200 3, no pet. ). Accordin gly , w e ha v e caref ully rev iew ed th e re c o rd s a nd h ave fo und noth ing that w ould

ar g uabl y su ppor t an appeal i n ei ther

ca se. See Bl edsoe v. Sta te , 178 S.W .3d 8 24, 8 26 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 5); Staff ord , 813 S.W .2d a t 509

. W e a gre e w it h c ounse l that the appeal s a re w hol ly

f ri v olo us and w it hout meri t. See B led soe , 178 S.W .3d a t 827 -2 8 ( "Due 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 tha t i t c onsi der ed th e i ss ues raised in th e brief s and rev iew ed th e record fo r rev ersible error but f oun d no ne, the cou rt of app eals m et th e requireme nts of Te x as Rule of

Appe llate Proce dure 47.1 ."). III . C oncl usi on The judgmen ts of

the trial court are af

f irmed . Additio nally, appe llant's cou nsel's

mo t i o n to w it hdr a w

a s a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l i s h e r e b y g r a n t e d

. W e o r d e r

c o u n s e l t o n o t i fy

a p p e ll a n t o f

t h e d is p o s it io n o f

h is a p p e a ls a n d o f

t h e a va il a b il it y o f

d i s c re t io n a ry r e vie w.4

See I n re K.D., S.D., and J.R. , 127 S.W .2d 66, 68 n. 3 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 3,

n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g Ex par

te Wil son , 956 S.W .2d 25, 27 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1997) ( en banc ) (p er 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 t he 28t h day

of Aug ust , 200 8.