1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 07- 401- CR B E NNI E L OR E NZ O DOR S E Y AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 396TH DI STRI CT CO URT OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

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

----- ----- -- A ppe l l antBenni e L or enz o Dor se y a ppe al s t he t r i al co urt ’ s or derr evo ki ng h i s d e fe rre d -a d j u d i c a ti o n c o m m u n i tys u p e rv i s i o n . W e a ffir m . A ppe l l antpl ea ded gui l t y t o agg r ava t ed as sa ul t w i t h a dea dl y w ea pon o n M a rch 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 , a n d rec e i v e d ten y e a rs’ de ferred -ad j u d i c a ti o n co m m u n i ty su pervi si on a nd a $1, 000 f i ne. O n A ugus t 3, 200 7, t he St at e f i l ed a p et i t i on2 ... 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S . C t. 1 3 9 6 (1 9 6 7 ). 3 ... S e eS taffo rd v. S tate , 8 1 3 S .W .2 d 5 0 3 , 5 1 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ); Mays v. State, 904 S . W . 2d 920, 922– 23 ( Tex. A p p .— FortW ort h 1995, no 2 t o a dj ud i c a t e , a nd t he tr i a l c ou rth e l d a h e a r i ng o n O c t ob e r23, 2007 . D ef end antpl ea ded t r ue t o vi ol at i ng t he t er m s of hi s com m uni t y s upe r vi si on by com m i t t i ng t he new of f ens e o fev adi ng a r r e stan d byf ai l i ng t o a t t end t he Treat m entA l t er nat i ves t o I ncar cer at i on pr ogr am o n fo uroccasi ons. The t r i al cour tadj udi ca t ed def endan tgui l t y and assessed puni shm entatf i ve year s’ c o n fi n e m e n t. A p p e l l a n t’ s c o u rt -ap p o i n ted ap p e l l a te c o u n s e l h a s fi l e d a m o ti o n to w i t hdr aw as counsel and a br i ef i n suppo rt of t he m ot i on. I n t he br i ef , counsel aver s t hat , i n hi s pr of essi onal opi ni on, t hi s appeal i s f r i vol ous. C oun sel ’ s br i ef a n d m o ti o n m e e t t h e req u i rem e n ts o f A n der sv. Ca lif

o r n ia b y p r e s e nt i ng a 2 p r o f e s s io n a l e v a lu a t io n o ft h e r e c o r d d e m o n s t r a t in g w h yt h e r e a r e n o a r g u a b le gr oun ds f orr el i ef . I n addi t i on, t hi s courti nf or m ed appel l antt hathe m ay f i l e a pr o s e b r i ef , buthe ha s notdones o. O nce an appel l ant ’ s court - appo i nt ed coun sel f i l es a m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw on t he gr ound t hatt he app e a l i s f r i vol ous an d f ul f i l l s t he r equ i r em ent s of A n ders , t hi s cou rt i s obl i gat ed t o und ert ak e a n i nde pen den tex am i nat i on oft he r ec or d. O nl y t hen m ay w e gr antcounsel ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw .

3 4p e t.). 4 ... See Pens on v. O hi o, 488 U. S. 75, 82–8 3, 109 S. Ct . 346, 351 (1 9 8 8 ).

5 ... S ee Bledsoe v. State, 178 S . W . 3d 824, 827

– 2 8 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 5 ); a c cord Meza v. State, 206 S . W . 3d 684, 685 n. 6 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 6 ). 3 W e have car ef ul l y r evi ew ed coun sel ’ s br i ef and t he r ecor d. W e agr ee w i t h c ouns el t hatt hi s app e a l i s w h ol l y f r i vol ous an d w i t houtm er i t ; w e f i nd n o t h in g in t h e r e c o r d t h a t m ig h ta r g u a b lys u p p o rtt h e a p p e a l. A c c o r d i n g l y , we 5 g ra n t c o u n s e l ’s m o ti o n to w i th d ra w a n d a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; W A LKER and M C C O Y, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Aug us t14, 2008