### NUM BER 13-07- 0001 2-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 C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G

DA VID M A RT INEZ , A pp ellan t,

v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e 11 7t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .


## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON
Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez Appel lan t, Dav id M a rtin ez , app eal s fr om tw o j udg ments of conv ic ti on for the off enses of

intox ic ati on manslau g hter and int ox ic ati on as saul t. See T EX

. P EN AL C OD E A NN

. §§ 49.07, 49.08 (Verno n Sup p. 20 07). App ellant ente red a ple a of nolo conte nde re to ea ch of the two indictme nts, wi tho ut an agreed sen ten cing r ecom me nda tion. T h e trial court f oun d ap pellan t guilty

in both cases

. A f t e r a p re-sente nce investigation, the trial court

ass ess ed puni shment at forty y ear s for

the int ox ic ati on mans lau g hter co unt a nd tw enty2

y ear s for

the int ox ic ati on as saul t c ount. The t ri al cour t or der ed th e s entenc es to r un

conc ur re ntl y
. Appel lan t’ s couns el has filed a br ief w it h thi s C our t as ser ti ng ther e i s n o basi s for appeal . W e ag re e, an d aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

I. C OMP LI A NCE WI TH A N D ERS V . C AL I FO RNI

A Appel lan t’ s couns el filed an And ers brief in w hich she has con clude d tha t the re is nothi ng t h a t m er it s r ev iew on d ir ect appeal

. And ers v

. California , 386 U .S. 738, 744 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. A p p e l l a n t ’ s b r i e f m e e t s t h e r e q u i r e me n t s o f And ers

. Id . at 74 4- 45; see Hi gh v

. Stat e , 573 S.W .2d 8 07, 8 12 ( Tex . C ri m. App. [Pa nel Op. ] 197 8 ). In compli ance w it h And ers , coun sel presen ted a prof ession al evaluation of the reco rd and ref erred th is Court to w hat, in her

opi nio n, ar e al l is sues whi ch mig ht ar g uabl y su ppor t an appeal

. See And ers , 386 U .S. at 74 4; Cur ri e v

. Stat e , 516 S.W .2d 684, 684 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1974) ; see als o H igh , 573 S.W .2d a t 812

. Cou nsel i nformed t his C our t t hat: (1 ) she dil ig entl y re ad and

re v iew ed th e re cor d and the ci rc umstan ces of appell ant’ s c onv ic ti on; ( 2) sh e bel iev es that th e r e a r e n o a r g u a b l e g r o u n d s t o b e a d v a n c e d o n a p p e a l ; a n d ( 3 ) s h e fo r w a r d ed to appel lan t a copy

of the b ri ef f il ed in s u p p o rt of hi s mot ion to w it hdr aw , w it h a l etter infor ming appel lan t of hi s r ig ht t o r ev iew the re cor d and file a pr o s e br ief. See Ande rs , 386 U. S. a t 744 -4 5; see als o St affor d v

. Stat e , 813 S.W .2d 503 , 509 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91); Hi gh , 573 S.W .2d a t 813

. Appel lan t w as pr ov ide d a c opy of the r ecor d and has submi tted a pr o s e br ief. In it , he ra is es thr ee is sues from cl aims of an i nv olu ntar y pl ea, p ro sec utor ial mis condu ct, and ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el. II. I NDEPE NDENT R E V I E W T he Su prem e C ou r

t ad v i s ed a pp el late co urts tha t upo n receiving a “frivolous app eal” br ief, t hey

must co nduct “ a full ex aminat ion of all the pr oce e d ing s t o dec ide w hether the3

case is w holly f riv olou s.” Pens on v

. Ohio , 488 U .S. 75, 8 0 ( 1988) ; see Ybar ra v
. Stat e , 93 S.W .3d 922 , 926 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 200 3, no pet .). Accordin gly , w e ha v e caref ully

re v iew ed th e reco rd , couns el’ s bri ef, and appell ant’ s p ro se br ief, an d hav e found not hin g that w oul d ar g uabl y

su ppor t an appeal

. See Bl edsoe v
. Stat e , 1 7 8 S

. W

. 3 d 8 2 4 , 8 2 6 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2005) ; Sta fford , 813 S.W .2d at 509. W e agree w ith coun sel tha t the app eal is

w hol ly fri v olo us and w it hout meri t. See B led soe , 178 S.W .3d at 827 -28 (“Due to the natu re

o f And ers brie f s, by

i ndi cat ing i n the opi nio n tha t i t c onsi der ed th e i ss ues ra is ed i n the br iefs and rev iew ed the r ecor d for re v er si ble er ro r but found n one, the c our t of appeal s met the r eq uir ements of

T ex as Rul e of Appel lat e Pr ocedu re 47.1 .” ). Ac cor din g ly , w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. III

. M OT I ON TO W I T HD RA W An app ell ate c our

t may g ra nt c ounse l’ s mot ion to w it hdr a w in c onnec ti on w it h an And ers br ief. Mo or

e v

. Stat e , 466 S. W .2d 2 89, 2 91 n. 1 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1971) ; Sta fford , 813 S. W .2d a t 511 ( noti ng that And ers br ief s houl d be filed w it h r eq uest to w it hdr aw from

cas e) ; see In re Shul

m an 252 S.W .3d 403 , *21-2 2 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 8) ( off ic ial pi npoi nt not d esi g nated)

. W e grant coun sel’s mot ion to w ithdra w . W e orde r counse l to ad vise

a p p e ll a n t p ro m p t ly o f

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

t h e c a s e a n d t h e a va il a b il it y o f d is c re t io n a ry r e vie w. See E x p ar te Wil son , 956 S.W .2d 2 5, 27 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1997) ( per cu ri am).

RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice 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 29t h day

of Jul y , 200 8.