### NUM BER 13-07- 0045 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

RIC HA RD K

A RL B LA NT ON, 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 C riminal Dist rict C ou rt of Je ffe rson C ou nt y , 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 w as pla ced on deferr ed adj udi cat ion for a per iod of fiv e y e a rs af ter

e n t e r i n g a p l e a o f g u i l t y , p u r s u a n t t o a p l e a b a r g a i n , t o t h e o f f e n s e o f d e l i v e r

y o f a cont ro ll ed s ubst ance of more than one g ra m but les s t han four g ra ms. See T EX

. H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN

. § 481.113 (c ) (V er non 200 3)

. The Stat e s ubseq uentl y fil ed a moti on to pr oceed w it h adj udi cat ion , al leg ing appel lan t commi tted four v iol ati ons of his co mmunity
supe rv ision; ap pellan t p le a ded “true” to each of the St ate ’s allegations. T he trial cou rt2

ass ess ed appe ll ant’ s p uni shment at confine ment in the Insti tuti onal Div is ion of the Tex as Dep ar tment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce for a per iod of ten y ear s. Appel lan t’ s c ounse l has filed a br ief w it h this Cour

t asser ti ng there is no b asi s for appeal

. W e ag re e, an d aff ir m the tr ial

cour t’ s j udg ment. I. C OMP LI A NCE WI TH A N D ERS V . C A L IF O R N IA Appel lan t’ s cour

t- appoi nted couns el filed an And ers br ief i n w hic h he has conc lud ed that ther e i s n o th in g t h a t mer it s r ev iew on d ir ect appeal

. And ers v

. California , 386 U .S. 7 3 8 , 7 4 4 ( 1 9 6 7 )

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

. Id . at 744- 45; see Hi gh v

. Stat e , 573 S.W

. 2 d 8 0 7 , 8 1 2 (Te x . Crim. App . [Pan el Op.] 197 8). In com pliance

w it h And ers , coun sel prese nte d a prof ession al evaluation o f t he record an d ref erred th is Cou rt to w hat, in his opin ion , ar e al l is sues w hic h mi g 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 ) he di li g entl y

r ead and

re v iew ed th e r ecor d and the c ir cums tanc es of ap pel lan t’ s conv ic ti on; ( 2) he b eli ev es that ther e ar e no ar g uabl e g ro unds to be adv anced o n a p p e a l; and (3 ) he forw ar ded t o appel lan t a c o p y o f the br ief fil ed i n s uppor t 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 re v iew the re cor d and fil e a p ro se 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 (Te x
. Crim. App . 199 1); Hi gh , 573 S.W .2d a t 813

. Appel lan t has filed a pr o se br ief. In it , he ass erts tw o i ss ues ar is ing from c lai ms of an i nv olu ntar

y pl ea 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 Cour

t ad v i s ed a pp el l ate courts 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 oceed in gs to de ci de 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 IT H D R AW 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.