### NUM BER 13-09- 146- 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
LU IS SOT O, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 48t h Dist rict C ou rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es B en av id es a n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la A p p e l l a n t , L u i s S o t o , w a s i n d i c t ed f or the c r i mi n a l o ffe n s e o f p o s s e s s i o n o f a cont ro ll ed s ubst ance. See T EX
. H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN
. § 4 81. 115 (a) (Vernon 2 006 ).2

Soto entered i nto a ple a barg ain ag re ement, w her eby in ex chang e for his ple a of gu il ty , he
re cei v ed a sent ence of tw o y ears’ co nfinement in a Stat e Jai l Fac il it y , pr obated for a per iod of four y ears’ deferred adj udi cat ion probati on and a $1, 500.00 fine. On S eptember 10, 2007, the S tate filed a mot ion to re v oke Soto’ s p ro bati on, a nd Sot o plea d e d t ru e to the all eg ati ons that he v iol ated condi ti ons of hi s pr obati on. After thi s p lea , t he C our

t ent er ed a f inding of

g uilt and placed Soto on com mu nity supe rv ision for a pe rio d of three years. On J anuar

y 29, 2009, the Stat e filed a s econd moti on to r ev oke, and Soto ag ain pl eaded tr ue to al leg ati ons that he v iol ated his condi ti ons of proba ti on ex ceptfor o ne al leg ati on th at he w as behi nd on cos ts. Afte r h e a ri ng ev ide nce, the tr ial co urt found t hat S oto h ad
v iolate d his cond itions, revoked h is probat ion, a nd se nte nced him to fourte en m ont hs in a St ate J ail F aci li ty

w it h c re ditfor t ime ser v ed. C oncl udi ng that"there ar e no meri tor iou s issues for app eal," app ellant 's counse l filed a brief in which h e rev iew ed the m erits, or lack th ereo f, of t he a pp ea l

. W e affi r m. I. Compl ian ce w it h And ers v. California Appel lan t' s c our

t- appoi nted couns el filed an And ers br ief i n w hic h he has conc lud ed that ther e ar e no appeal abl e i ss ues for thi s C our t t o c onsi der

. See Ande rs v. C alifornia , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 73 8 , 74 4 ( 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
. See id . at 744- 45; Hi

gh v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 807, 81 2 ( Tex . C ri m. App. [Pa nel Op. ] 197 8) ; see a lso In r e Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d 4 03, 4 07 n. 9 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008) ("I n Tex as, an And ers brief nee d no t specif ically

advance 'arguab le' point s of error if c o u n s e l f in ds no ne, but it must pr ov id e r e co rd r eferenc es to t he facts and pr ocedu ra l his tor y and setout per

ti nent le gal au th o rit ie s. " ) (ci ti n g Hawk ins v. Sta te , 112 S.W .3d 340, 343- 44 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pusT he T exas Cour t of C r i m i nal Appeal s has hel d t hat " t he pr o se r esponse need not 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 for 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 t he ca se 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 Schulm an , 252 S

. W

. 3d 403, 409 n. 23 ( T ex. C r i m
. A pp. 200 8) ( quot i ng W i l s o n v . S ta te , 9 5 5 S .W .2 d 6 9 3 , 6 9 6 -9 7 (T e x . A p p .– W a c o 1 9 9 7 , n o p e t.)). 3 Christi 2003 , no pe t.)); Sta ffor d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 503 , 510 n.3 (T ex. C rim. App . 199 1). In c ompli ance w it h And ers , followi ng h is review o f t he Court's f ile a nd the t ranscripts, h is
re sear ch, and his co rrespon dence w it h appel lan t, couns el pr esent ed a pr ofessi onal evaluation of

the reco rd including, am ong oth er things, a rev iew o f grand jury

procee dings, pr e- tr ial moti ons, r esearch and i nv est ig ation, compete ncy , s entenc ing , r ig ht t o pr esent
ev ide nce during the g uil t/i nnoce nce and pun is hment s tag es, and ri g ht t o appea l. See And ers , 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 appel lat e record and
conc lud ed there are no arg uabl e grounds f or rev ersal

. He has al so infor med this C our t t hat he pro vide d appel lan t w it h a c opy of the t ra nsc ri pts i n hi s c ase, a c opy of the b ri ef, and not if ied app ellant o f

h is right t o rev iew

t he record an d to f ile a pro se respo nse to coun sel's brief and mot ion to w ithdra w w ithin th irty

days. See In r

e Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d at 409 1 n.2 3. More tha n an ade quate p eriod of time h as pa ssed, and app ellant has n ot f iled a pro
se re spons e. Id. at 40 9; see a lso And ers , 386 U .S. at 74 4- 45; Sta fford , 8 1 3 a t5 0 9 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1991) ; Hi

gh , 573 S.W .2d a t 813

.

II. Inde pendentR ev iew The Uni ted Stat es Supr eme Cou rt adv is ed appel lat e cour ts that upon re ceiving a "friv olo us appeal " brie f , th e y must c onduc t "a full ex aminat ion of all the pr oceed ing s t oN o subst i t ut e counsel w i l l be appoi nt ed. Shoul d appel l ant w i sh t o see k f ur t her r ev i ew oft 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 r etai n a n a t t orn ey t o f i l e a p e ti t i on for di s c ret i 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 fe 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 4 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 2 0 03, no pe t.). Accordin gly , w e ha v e caref ully rev iew ed th e record an d ha v e foun d no thing tha t w ould
ar g uabl y su ppor t an appeal

. See Bledsoe v. St ate , 178 S.W .3d 8 24, 8 26 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 200 5); Staff

ord , 813 S.W .2d at 509

. W e a gree wi th cou nsel th at th e ap pea l is w holly friv olo us and w it hout meri t. See B led soe , 17 8 S .W .3 d at 827- 28 ( "Due to the n atur e of And ers b r i e fs , b y

i n d i c a t i n g i n t h e op i n i o n th a ti tco 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 the record for rev ersi ble er ro r but found n one, the c our t of appeal s metthe requireme nts of

Te x as Rule of

Appe llate Proce dure 47.1 ."). III . C oncl usi on The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med. I n ac cordance w it h And ers , app ellant 's attor ney ha s a sk e d thi s C our

t for per mis si on to w it hdr aw as co unsel for a ppel lan t. See And ers , 386 U. S. at 74 4; see als o In re Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 408 n.17 ( ci ti ng Jeffe ry
v. State , 903 S.W .2d 7 76, 7 79- 80 ( Tex . A p p .– Da llas 1995, no p et.) ( noti ng that"[i ]f an attor ney bel iev es the a ppeal is f ri v olo us, he must w it hdr aw f ro m r epr esent ing the appel lan t. To w it hdr aw

from repr esent ati on, the a p p oin ted a ttor ney mustfil e a mot ion to w it hdr aw
acc ompani ed by a br ief show ing the appel lat e c our t t hat t he appe al is fri v olo us. ") (c it ati ons
om it t e d )). W e grant his mo tion to w ithdra w . W ithin f iv e da y s of the da te of

this Court's opi nio n, c ounse l is order ed to se nd a copy of the opini on and jud g ment to appel lan t and t o a d vis e a p p e ll a n to f

h is r ig h tt o f il e a p e t it io n fo r d is c re t io n a ry r e vie w. 2 See T EX
. R. A PP
.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 cour 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 l y w i th th e re q u i re m e n ts o f R u le 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. 5 P. 4 8.4; see als o In re Sc hul m an , 252 S. W .3d a t 412 n.35 ; Ex par te O wens , 206 S.W .3d 670, 673 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Del iv er ed and filed the 29th day of Apr il , 201 0.