### NUM BER 13-07- 619- 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

JA M ES D ESM OND YOU NG, 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 52n d Dist rict C ou rt of Je ffe rson 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 Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel l a n t , J a me s D e s mo n d Y o u n g , w a s i n d i c t e d fo r t h e c r i mi n a l o ffe n s e of ag g ra v ated ro bber

y
. On M ar ch 29, 2 007, the tr ial court def er re d adjudi cat ion and plac ed
a p p e ll a n t o n p r o b a t io n f o r e ig h t ye a rs
. In Ju ly 2 0 0 7 , a p p e ll a n t p le a d e d t ru e t o t wo all eg ati ons in the Stat e's moti on to r ev oke pr obati on—g iv ing a fic ti ti ous name and v iol ati ng2

cur few

. On A ug ust 27, 2007, the t ri al cour t found bot h al leg ati ons tr ue, a dju dic ated appel lan t' s g uil t, and s entenc ed appe ll ant t o 2 5 years co nfinement in the I nst it uti onal Di v is ion of the Depar

tment of Cr imi nal Justi ce. Con cl udi ng that "there ar e no meri tor iou s issues f or app eal," app ellant 's coun sel f iled a brief in w hich he rev iew ed the merits, or lack thereo f , o f

the appeal

. The Stat e ag re es w it h c ounse l' s c oncl usi on th at t her e ar e no
me r i to r i ou s g r ou nd s 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 cour

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

. An de r

s v
. C ali fornia , 386 U

. S

. 73 8 , 74 4 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. A p p e l l a n t ' s br i e f me e t s th e r e q u i r e me n t s o f And ers
. Id . at 744- 45; see Hi gh v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 807 , 812 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. [Pa nel Op .] 19 78). In com pliance

w it h And ers , foll ow ing hi s r ev iew of the c our

t' s fil e and the t ra n sc ripts, his r esear ch, and his co rr espon dence w it h appel lan t, couns el pr esent ed a pr ofessi onal ev a lu a ti on of the record includ ing, amo ng o the r th ings, a review o f grand ju ry

p rocee dings, pre-trial mo tions,
re sear ch and inv est ig ati on, competen cy , sentenc ing , ri g ht t o pr esent ev ide nce dur ing the g uil t/i nnoce nce and pun is hment s tag es, and ri g ht t o appea l. See Ande rs , 386 U. S. at 74 4; Cur ri e v . St ate , 516 S. W .2d 6 84, 6 84 ( 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 ed th e appellat e r ecor d and
conc lud es ther e ar e no ar g uabl e g ro unds for r ev er sal

. He has al so infor med thi s C our t t hat he p rov ided app ellant w ith a cop y of the transcripts in his case an d no tif ied ap pellan t of 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 Staf for d v. Stat e , 813 S.W .2d 5 03,3

509 (Te x
. Crim. App

. 1 9 9 1 ) ( e n b anc); 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. I ndependen t R ev iew T h e Un it e d St a te s S u p re m e Co u rt ad vis e d a p p e lla te co u rt s t h a t u p o n rec e ivin g a "fr i v o l o u s a p p e a l " b r i e f, t h e y mu s t c o n d u c t " a fu l l e x a mi n a t i o n o f a l l t h e p r o c eedi ng s t o 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 200 3, no pet. ). 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 suppo rt an appe al. See B led soe v. Stat e , 178 S.W .3d 8 24, 8 26 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 200 5); S ta fford , 8 13 S. W .2d at 509 . W e agree w ith cou nsel th at th e ap pea l is w holly f riv olo us and w it hout meri t. See B led soe , 1 7 8 S

. W

. 3 d a t 8 2 7
- 2 8 ( " D u e t o t h e natur e of And ers b r i e fs , b y

i n d i c a t i n g i n th 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 th e re cor d for re v er si ble er ro r but found none, the cour t of ap peal s met the requireme nts of

Te x as Rule of

Appe llate Proce dure 47.1 ."). III

. Con cl usi on The ju dg ment of the tr ial court 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 w as car ri ed w it h the ca se on J anuar y 10, 2008. See And ers , 386 U .S. at 74 4. Hav ing aff ir med the jud g ment, w e now g ra nt c ounse l' s mot ion to w it hdr aw
. 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 eti onar

y r ev iew

. See I n r

e K. D

. , S.D., an d J.R. , 127 S.W .2d 6 6, 68
n .3 ( T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [ 1 st D ist .] 2 0 0 3 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g Ex par te Wil son , 956 S.W .2d 2 5, 27 (T ex. C rim. App . 199 7) (en ban c) ( per curiam )).4 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). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 1 3th d ay

of Ma rc h, 20 08.