1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO S. 02- 07- 327- CR 02- 07- 328- CR VE R NON R AYS P AW A/ K /A V E R NON S P AW AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 297TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

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

----- ----- -- A ppe l l antV er non R a y Spaw en t er ed ope n pl ea s ofgui l t y t o bur gl ary of a h abi t at i on a nd f el on i n p o s s e s s i on ofa f i r ea r m , an d hepl ea ded t r ue t o t he d e a d l y w e a p o n fi n d i n g a n d to th e re p e a t o ffe n d e r n o ti c e . T h e tri a l c o u rt accept ed hi s pl eas and subsequentl y asses sed puni shm entat fo rt y year s’2 ... S eeT e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 3 0 .0 2 ( V e rno n 2 0 0 3 ) (b u r g la ry o f a

hab i t at i on of f ens e); s e eid . §§ 1 2. 32, 12. 42( b) ( Ver no n Sup p. 2008 ) ( p u n i s h m e ntr ang e f oren han ce d s ec ond- deg r eef el ony i s f i ve t o ni net y- ni ne y e a rs ’ c o n fi n e m e n t).

3 ... See i

d. § 4 6 .0 4 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ) (fe l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f fi re a rm of fe n s e ); i

d. § 1 2. 34 ( pun i shm entr ange f ort hi r d- degr ee f el ony i s t w o t o t en y e a rs ’ c o n fi n e m e n t).

4 ... 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S . C t. 1 3 9 6 (1 9 6 7 ).
5 ... Spaw co m pl ai nst hat t he t r i alco urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on byal l ow i ng hi m t o e nt eran ope n p l e a o f g u i l t y w i t houta com pet enc y he ar i ng, t hatt he S t at e act ed w i t h pr osecut or i al vi ndi ct i veness i n seeki ng a hi ghersent ence t han t hatof f er ed dur i ng pl ea negoti at i ons, and t hat he r ecei ved i nef f ect i ve assi st ance o f co u n se l i n th e tr i a l c o u rt . N o tw i th sta n d i n g th e sta n d a rd o f rev i e w tha t w e m ustappl y t o t hi s case, t he r ecor d suppo rt s none oft hese com pl ai nt s. 2 confi nem entf ort he bur gl ary of f ense 2 and t en yea r s’ con f i nem ent f ort he f el on i n possessi on of a f i r ear m of f ense. 3 I n t hr ee poi nt s, Sp aw now appeal s t hese
c o n v i c t i o n s . We a f f i r m. S paw ’ s court - appo i nt ed appel l at e coun sel has f i l ed a m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw a sc o u n s e l a n d a b r i e f i n s u p p o rt o f th a t m o ti o n . I n th e b ri e f, c o u n s e l a v e rs t hat , i n hi s pr of e s s i ona l opi ni on, t hi s app ea l i s f r i vol ous . Couns el ’ s br i efan 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 s v. Ca lif

o r nia 4by pr es ent i ng a p r o f e s s io n a l e v a lu a t io n o ft h e re 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 ounds f or r el i ef . W e gav e Spaw t he opport uni t y t o f i l e a pr o sebr i ef , an d he has f i l ed one. 53

A s t he r evi ew i ng cou rt , w e m us tco nduc tan i nde pen den tev al uat i on of t he r ec or d t o de t er m i ne w het herco uns eli s corr e c t i n de t er m i ni ng t hatt he
a p p e a l i sfri v o l o u s . 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 r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 1 ); Ma ys v. S tate , 9 0 4 S . W . 2 d 9 2 0 , 9 2 3 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 1 9 9 5 , n o p e t.). O n l yth e n m a y w e g ra n t c o u n s e l ’sm o ti o n to w i th d ra w . S ee Pen s o nv. O hio , 48 8 U . S . 75 , 82 –8 3, 10 9 S . C t . 34 6, 35 1 ( 19 88 ) . Becau se Spaw en t er ed an ope n pl ea ofgui l t y, ouri nde pen den tr evi ew f orpot ent i aler r or i s l i m i t ed t o potent i al j ur i sdi ct i onal def ect s, t he vol untar i ness ofSp aw ’ s pl ea, er r ort hati s noti nde pen den tofan d s upport s t he j udgm entofgui l t , an d er r or o c c u rri n g a fte r e n try o f th e g u i l ty p l e a . S e eMo n rea l v. S tate , 99 S . W . 3d 615, 6 2 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ); Yo ungv. S tate , 8 S. W . 3d 656, 666– 67 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). W e have car ef ul l y r evi ew ed t he r ecor d, i ncl udi ng t he seal ed pr esent ence i n v e sti g a ti o n rep o rt , c o u n se l ’s b ri e f, S p a w ’s p ro s e b ri e f, an d the S tate ’s b ri e f. W e ag ree w i th c o u n se l th a t th i s a p p e a l i s w h o l l yfr i v o l o u s a n d w i th o u t m e ri t. W e fi n d n o th i n g i n th e re c o rd th a t m i g h t a rg u a b l ys u p p o rt th e a p p e a l . S ee Ble ds oe v. State, 1 7 8 S .W .3 d 8 2 4 , 8 2 7

– 2 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); ac c o rd Mezav. S ta te, 206 S. W . 3d 684, 685 n. 6 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2006 ). We th e re fo re g ra n t c o u n s e l ’sm o ti o n to w i t h d r a 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.4 P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: M C C O Y, LI V I N G STO N , an d DA U PH I N O T, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Dec e m be r31, 2008