1 ... S itt ing b y a ssig n m e n t.

i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No . 0 4- 08 -0 01 20 -C R Fe rnando M AR RO QU IN , Appellant

v. The STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 186th J udicial District Court of B exar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CR-5884 Honora ble Pat Priest, J udg e Presiding 1 Opinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: Dece mber 3, 2008 MOTI ON TO WI THDRAW GRANTED; AF FI RMED Fe rnando Ma

rroquin pled nolo conte ndere to f elony driving while intox icated pursuant to a ple a a g re e me nt. Th e tr ia l c ou rt a sse sse d a six y e a r se nte nc e in a c c or da nc e wi th the agreeme nt,

su sp e nd e d im

po sit ion of the se nte nc e , an d pla c e d Mar ro qu in on co mmu nit

y su pe rv isi on . T he Sta te la te r f ile d a mot ion to r e vo ke , a lle g ingMa rr oq uin vio la te d v a ri ou s c on dit ion s o f h is c omm un ity

su pe rv isi on . A ft e r M a rr oq

uin ple d tr ue to n ine of

the a lle g e d viol a tio ns , th e tr ia l c ou rt re vo ke d h is- 2-

community

supervision and sente nced him to four y ear s imprisonment in the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice - I nstitut ional Division. Marroquin appe als. Ma r r o q u i n ’ s c o u r t

- a

p p o i n t e d a

p p e l l a t e a t t o r

n e y f i l e d a m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w a n d a b r i e f i n which she r aises ar g uable points of er ror, but nonethe l ess concludes this appeal is fr ivolous and without mer it. The brief

meets the re quirements of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High

v . S tat e , 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) , and Ga ino us v . S tat e , 436 S.W. 2d 13 7 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1969). Counsel states Mar roquin was pr ovided a c opy of the brie f and motion to wit hdrawand informed of

his right to re view the r ecor d and file his own br ief. He has not done so. Af te r r e vie wi ng the re cord a nd c ou ns e l’ s b ri e f, we fi nd

no re ve rs ibl e e rr or

a nd a g re e wi th counsel the appea l is wholly frivolous. Se e Bl e ds oe v . S tat e , 178 S.W. 3d

82 4, 82 6- 27 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2005). W e therefor e gra nt the m otion to withdraw filed by Marr oquin’s counsel and aff irm the trial court’ s judgme nt. Se e id. ; N ic ho ls v . S

tat e , 954 S.W .2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1997,

no pe t.) ; Br un s v . S

tat e , 924 S.W .2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1996, no pet.). No substitute counsel will be appointed. S hould Marroquin wish to see k further revie w of this case by

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a pe tition for discr etionary

revie w or file a pro se petition for discre tionary revie w. Any

petition for dis c re tio na

ry re vie w mus t be fil e d with in thi rt y da y s fr om the da te of

e ith e r t his op ini on

or the la st timely motion for rehea

ring that is overrule d by

this court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionar

y revie w m ust be filed with this court, a fter w hich it will be forwa rded to the Te x as Court of Criminal Appea ls along with the rest of t he fili ng s in this case. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for dis c re tio na

ry re vie w m us t c omp ly

wi th the re qu ir e me nts of Rul e 68 .4 of Te xas Rule s o f A pp e lla te Procedur e. See id. R. 68.4. Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Do no t pu bli sh