### NUM BER 13-08- 066- 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

EZ ZA T KA LO SIDO , A pp ellan t,

v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 4 30t h Dist rict C ou rt of H ida lgo C ou nt y , 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 G arza 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 Appel lan t, Ez z at K alo Si do, w as ind ic te d for t he c ri minal off ense of assa ult

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 22.01( a) (V er non 2006)

. Si do enter ed a “n ot g uil ty ” ple a t o the
co u rta n d , a ft e r

a b e n c h t r i a l , w a s fo u n d g u i l t y a n d s e n t e n c e d t o fi v e y e a r s ’ c o n fi n ement in the Te x as Depa rtme nt of Co rrections, Institu tiona l Div ision. Co nclud ing that "t here are2

no mer it or iou s i ss ues for appe al, " appel lan t' s c ounse l filed a br ief i n w hic h he re v iew ed th e
me r i ts , or

l ac kt he r eo 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 th is C our t t o c onsi der

. See Ande rs v. C alifornia , 3 8 6 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 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, 812 (Tex . Cr im. App. [Pane l Op.] 1978) ; see a lso In re Schu lm an , 252 S. W .3d 4 03, 4 07 n. 9 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008) ( "In Tex as, an And ers brief nee d no t spe c if ic a ll y a d v ance 'arg uab le' point s of error i f coun sel f inds no ne, but it must pr ov ide r ecord r eferenc es to t h e f a ct s 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 pus Christi 2003 , no pe t.)); Sta ffor d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 503 , 510 n .3 (Te x . Crim. 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 and the tran scripts, his
re sear ch, a nd hi s c or re spond ence 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 t hings, a rev iew of g rand jury

procee dings, pr e- tr ial moti ons, r esear ch and i nv est ig ati on, c ompetenc y , s enten ci ng , r ig ht t o pr esent
ev ide nce dur ing the g uil t/i nnoce nce a nd puni shmentst ag 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 re cord a nd
conc lud ed th er e ar e no ar g uabl e g ro unds for r ev er sal

. He has als o i nformed t his C our t t hat he prov ide d appel lan t w it h a co p y o f the tr ansc ri pts i n hi s c ase, a c opy of the b ri ef, and not if ied ap pellan t of his rig ht to rev iew the record and to f ile a pro se respo nse to coun sel'sT 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 no t com pl y wi t h t he 1 rul es of ap pe l l ate p roc 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
. App. 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 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 a t 409 1 n.2 3. More tha n an ade quate p eriod of time h as pa ssed, and app ellant has not f iled a pro
se re spons e. Id. at 40 9; see a lso And ers , 386 U. S. a t 744 -4 5; 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 T h e Un it e d St a te s S u p re m e Co u rt a d vi s e d ap p e lla te co u rt s t h a t u p o n rec e ivin g a "friv olo us a p p e a l" b ri ef, they mustco nduct"a full ex aminat ion of all the pr oceed ing s t o 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 2 003 , no pe t.). Accordin gly , w e ha v e caref ully rev iew ed th e record an d ha v e f oun d no thing tha t w ould
ar g uabl y suppo rtan a ppeal

. See Bledsoe v. Sta te , 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 agree w ith cou ns e l t h at th e ap pea l is w holly fr i v o l o u s a n d w i t h o u t me r it

. Se e Bleds oe , 178 S.W .3d a t 827 -2 8 ( "Due to the n atur e of And ers b r i e fs , by

i n d i c a t i n g i n th e op i n i o n th a ti tco n s i d e r e d t h 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 re cor d for re v er si ble er ro r but found none, the cour 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 cor dance w it h And ers , app ellant 's attor ney has as ked thi s C our

t for per mis si on to w it hdr aw as c o u n se l for appe ll ant. 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 . Ap p.–D all as 1995, no pet .) ( noti ng that"[i ]f anN o sub st i t ut e cou nsel wi l l be appoi nt ed. Shoul d appel l ant wi sh t o seek f ur t her r ev i ew oft hi s case 2 by the T exas Cour t of C r i m i nal Appeal s, he m ust ei t her r et ai n an at t or ney t o f i l e a pet i t i on f or di scr et 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 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. 4 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 r epr esent ati on, t he appo int ed at tor ney mustf ile a m oti on to w it hdr aw
acc ompani ed by

a br ief show ing the appel lat e court that the appeal 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 or der 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 t o f h is ri gh t t 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
. 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). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 1 4th d ay

of Ma y , 200 9.