### NUM BER 13-08- 0034 8-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

BR A ND ON BOY D SHY TL ES, 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 3 6th D istrict Co urt of A rans as Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd Ve la M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appella n t, Br andon B oy d Shy tl es, appeal s fr om hi s c onv ic ti on of theft. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 31.03 (V er non Supp. 2008)

. Appel lan t ple aded g uilt y an d w as sent enced to tw o y ear s' incar cer ati on. The tr ial court suspende d the sen tenc e and pla ced appel lan t on co mmunity su per v is ion for a per iod of tw o y ear s. After appel lan t pl eaded "true " to violating the term s of his comm unity supervisi on, the trial court revoke d hisT he T exas Cour t of C r i m i nal Appeal s has hel d t hat " t he p r o se r esponse nee d no t com pl y wi t h t he 1 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 p re s e n ts a n y m e rit o rio u s i s s u e s ." I n r e Schul m an , 252 S. W

. 3d 4 03, 409 n. 23 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 8) ( 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

. ))

. 2 communi ty

su per v is ion and sent enced hi m to t w o y ear s' i ncar cer ati on. Appel lan t' s c ounse l filed an And ers

brief in which h e conclu des the re are no a rg uab le gr oun ds f or an ap pea l. W e affi r m. I. C OMP LI A NCE WI TH A N D ERS V . C A L IF O R N IA In t he And ers br ief, appel lan t' s couns el conc lud es that thi s a ppeal i s fr iv olo us and

w it hout meri t. See And ers v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 ( 1967)

. Appel lan t' s b ri ef meets t h e r e q u i r e me n t s o f And ers
. See i d. at 744- 45; see als o H igh v. Sta te , 573 S.W .2d 8 07, 812 ( Tex . C ri m. App. [Panel Op.] 1978)

. Cou nsel has pr esent ed a pr ofessi onal ev alu ati on of the r ecor d and re ferr ed th is C our t t o w hat, in his opi nio n, ar e al l is sues w hic h mi g ht
ar g uabl y su ppor t an appeal i ncl udi ng , among othe r thi ng s, jur is dic ti onal er ro r, pr ocedu ra l
er ro r, and the s uff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce. See Ande rs , 386 U .S. at 74 4; Cur ri e v. Stat e , 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

. In c ompli ance w it h Hi

gh , 5 7 3 S .W .2d at 813 , app ellant 's counse l has caref ully dis cus sed w hy , und er

co ntr oll ing auth or it y , ther e are no err or s in the t ri al cour t' s j udg ment. Cou nsel has i nformed t his C our t t hat h e r ev iew ed th e r ecor d, r esear che d t h e l aw appl ic abl e to the fact s a nd i ss ues, and now co ncl udes that ther e ar e no ar g uabl e g ro unds for appe al. C ounse l cer ti fies to this Cour

t that he serv ed a copy

of the br ief and his moti on to w it hdr aw

on a ppel lan t, and he infor med appell ant of his ri g ht t o r ev iew the re cor d and f ile a pro se respo nse w ithin thirty days. See Ande rs , 386 U.S. at 74 4; Staf for d v . St ate , 1 813 S.W .2d 503, 510 n. 3 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991) ( en banc ); see als o In r e Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d 4 03, 4 09 n. 23 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008)

. Mo re than an adeq uate per iod of ti me has3

pass ed, and appell ant has not f il ed a pr o s e r espon se. See I n r e Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d at 40 9. II. I NDEPE NDENT R EVI EW 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 appe a l" b rief, w e must co nduct "a full ex aminat ion of all the pr oceed ing s t o deci de w hether the cas e is w hol ly friv olo us. " Pen son v. Oh io , 488 U .S. 75, 8 0 ( 1988) ; see Ybar ra v. Sta te , 93 S. W . 3d 92 2, 92 6 (Te x . App .–Corp us Christi 2003 , n o pet. ). Accordin gl y, w e ha v e caref ully rev iew ed th e record an d ha v e f oun d no thing arguably suppo rt ing an a ppeal

. See B led soe v. Stat e , 178 S.W .3d 824 , 826 (Te x
. Crim. App . 200 5); Stafford , 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 olou s. See B led

soe , 17 8 S. W

. 3 d at 82 7
- 2 8 ( " D u e to th e na t u r e o f And ers brief s, by indicat ing i n the o pin ion that i t c onsi der ed th e i ss ues ra is ed i n the br iefs and r ev iew ed th e r ecor d for
rev ersible error but f oun d non e, the court of app eals met the requireme nts of T exas Rule of Appel lat e Pr ocedu re 47.1 .")

. The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med. III
. M OT I ON TO W IT H D R AW In ac cor dance 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

as co unsel for a ppel lan t. Se e And ers , 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, he must w it hdr aw

from r epr esent ing the appel lan t. To w it hdr aw from r epr esent ati on, t he appoi nted a tt o rn e y mus t fil e a mot ion to w it hdr aw ac compani ed by

a br ief s how ing the app ellate court tha t the app eal is f riv olou s.”) ( citation s omitt ed)). W e grant coun sel’s moti on to w it hdr aw
. W it hin fiv e day s o f t he date of t his C our t’ s o pin ion , c ounse l is or der ed to s end a copy

of the opi nio n and jud g ment to appell ant and to adv is e appell ant of his r ig htN o sub st i t ut e cou nsel wi l l be appo i nt ed. Shoul d ap pel l ant wi sh t o see k f ur t her r ev i ew of t hi s case 2 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 ret ai n an att orn ey t o f i l e a pe t i t i on for d i s c re ti 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 f e 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 ly 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 t o f il e a p e t it i o n f o r d is c re t io n a ry r e vie w. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 48.4; see a lso In re 2 Schu lm an , 2 5 2 S .W .3d a t 412 n.35 ; Ex par te O wens , 20 6 S. W .3 d 67 0, 6 73 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2006)

.

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 5 th da y

of Ma rc h, 20 09.