See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. §§ 49

. 04 (Ve rno n 2 00 3), 49

. 09 (b)(2) ( V ern on S up p. 20 08 ). 1 

# NUM BER 13-08- 0017 1-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

M A RIO RA M IREZ , A pp ellan t,

v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 05t h Dist rict C ou rt o f K leb erg Co un ty , 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 Ju stice Ya ñe z A j ur y found appel lan t, Ma ri o R a m ire z, guilt y of felony

dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated (D W I) , enh anced by

tw o pr ior conv ic ti ons for DW I. The tr ial cour t as ses sed puni shment 1S e e i d

. § 1 2.34 (Ve rno n 2 00 3). 2 S e e A n d e r

s v . C a lifo r

n ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 7 4 4 (1 9 6 7 ). 3 S e e i d

. 4 See I n r

e Schulm an , 252 S. W

. 3d 4 03, 407 n. 9 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 8) ( “ I n T exas, an A nd ers br i ef 5 ne ed no t sp ec i fi c al l y ad van c e ‘ arg ua bl e’ po i nts o f err o r i f c o u n s e l fi nd s no ne , bu t i t m us t provi de rec ord r ef er ences t o t he f act s and pr ocedur al hi st or y and set out per t i nent l egal aut hor i t i es. ” ) ( ci t i ng H a w k in s v . S ta te , 1 1 2 S .W .3 d 3 4 0 , 3 4 3 -4 4 (T e x
. A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.)); S ta ffo rd v . S ta te , 813 S. W

. 2d 5 03, 510 n .3 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ).

H i g h v . S ta te , 57 3 S

. W

. 2d 80 7, 81 3 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. [ P an el O p.] 19 78 ). 6 

## 2 at t en y ears’ i mpri sonmentand a $5, 000 fine. 2 

## Appel lan t’ s a ppel lat e c ounse l, concl udi ng that he “c an find no mer it or iou s i ss ues to br ing forw ard for re v iew ,” f il ed an And ers brief , in w hich he rev iew ed th e me rits, or lack 3 

## thereof, of the app eal

. W e aff ir m. I. D I S CUS S I ON 

## Pursuantto And er

s v . California , appel lan t’ s c our t- appoi nted appel lat e c ounse l has 4 

## filed a br ief w it h thi s C our t, sta ti ng thathi s rev iew of the re cord y iel ded no g ro unds or er ro r upon w hic h an appeal can be pr edi cat ed. Al thoug h couns el’ s b ri ef does n ot ad v ance any arguable g roun ds of

error, it d o e s p resen t a prof ession al evaluation of the reco rd dem onst rating w hy the re are no a rg uab le groun ds to be advanced on ap pea l. 5 

## In c ompli ance w it h Hi

gh v . St ate , a p p e ll a n t ’s c o u n s e l h a s ca re f u ll y d is c u s s e d wh y, 6 

## under co ntroll ing auth or it y , t her e are no errors in the tri al cour t' s judg ment. Counsel has infor med thi s Cou rt that he has : (1 ) ex amined the re cord and found no arg uabl e g ro unds to ad v ance on appe al, ( 2) se rv ed a copy of t he br ief and couns el’ s moti on to w it hdr aw on app ellant , and (3) i nforme d app ellant o f h is right t o rev iew

t he record an d to f ile a pro seS ee A nd ers , 386 U

. S. at 744 ; S t aff ord , 8 1 3 S .W .2 d a t 5 1 0 n .3 ; see a lso I n r e Schulm an , 252 S. W

. 3d 7 a t 4 0 9 n .2 3 . T h 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 h a s h e l d th a t “th e p ro s e re s p o n s e n e e d n o t c o m p l y w i th t he rul es of ap pe l l ate pro c ed ure i n orde r t o be 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 h o s e i s s u e s w h i c h t h e i n d i g e n t a p p e l l a n t b e l i e v e s t h e c o u r t s h o u l d c o n s i d e r i n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t h e case pre s en t s an y m eri t ori ou s i s s ue s
. ” I n r e Schulm an , 2 5 2 S

. W

. 3 d a t 4 0 9 n
. 2 3 ( q u o t i ng W ils o n v . S ta te , 955 S

. W

. 2d 69 3, 69 6-9 7 (T ex
. A pp
. –W ac o 1 99 7, no pe t

. ))

.

See I n r e Schulm an , 252 S. W

. 3d a t 409

. 8
P e n s o n v . O h i o , 4 8 8 U .S . 7 5 , 8 0 (1 9 9 8 ). 9 S e e B l e d s o e v . S ta te , 178 S. W

. 3d 8 24, 826
- 28 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 5) ( “ D ue t o t he n at ur e of 10 A nd ers br i ef s, by i ndi cat i ng i n t he opi ni on t hat i t consi der ed t he i ssues r ai sed i n t he b r i ef s and r ev i ewed t he r ecor d f or r ev er si bl e er r or but f ound no ne , the cour t of app eal s m et t he r equi r em ent of T exas Rul e of A p p e l l a te P ro c e d u re 4 7 .1 .”); S t aff ord , 813 S. W

. 2d a t 509

. S ee A nd ers , 386 U

. S. at 744 ; see also I n r e Schulm an , 252 S. W

. 3d a t 408 n. 17 ( ci t i ng Jef f er y v. 11 S ta te , 903 S. W

. 2d 7 76, 779
- 80 ( T ex. App. –D al l as 19 95, no pet

. ) ( not i ng t hat “ [ i ] fan at t or ney bel i ev es t he appea l i s f r i v ol ous, he m ust wi t hdr aw f r om r epr esent i ng t he a ppel l ant

. T o wi t hdr aw f r om r epr esent at i on, t he appoi nt ed a t t or ney m ust f i l e a m ot i on t o wi t hdr aw accom pani ed by a br i efshowi ng t he appel l at e cour t t hat t he a p p e a l i s frivo l o u s .”) ( c i ta ti o n s o m i tte d ))

. 

## 3 re spons e. M or e tha n an adeq uate per iod of t ime has pass ed, a nd appe ll ant h as not fil ed

7 

## a pro s e respon se. 8 

## II. I NDEPE NDENT 

## R EVI EW 

## Upo n recei v ing an And ers br ief, w e mustco nducta full ex aminat ion of all the proceed ing s t o d e te rmi ne w hether the cas e i s w hol ly

fri v olo us. W e hav e rev iew ed th e

9 

## enti re record and couns el' s bri ef and hav e found nothi ng that w oul d arg uabl y su ppor t an app eal. Ac cordin g ly , w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

10 

## III
. M OT I ON TO 

## W IT H D R AW 

## In ac cordance w it h And ers , app ell ant’ s a ttor ney has as ked thi s C our

t for per mis si on t o wit h d ra w a s co u n s e l fo r a p p e ll a n t

. W e g ra n tco u n s e l’ s m o t io n t o wit h d ra w. W it h in f ive 11 

## day s o f the dat e of thi s C our t’ s o pin ion , c ounse l is order ed to se nd a copy of the o pin ion and j udg ment t o appe lla n t a n d to adv is e appel lan t of hi s r ig ht t o fil e a p eti ti on forSee T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 8 .4 ; see also I n re Schulm an , 2 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 4 1 2 n .3 5 ; Ex part e O w ens , 206 12 S .W .3 d 6 7 0 , 6 7 3 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). N o s u b s ti tu te c o u n s e l w i l l b e a p p o i n te d

. S h o u l d a p p e l l a n t w i s h to s e e k fu rth e r re v i e w o f th i s c a s e b y 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 , h e m u s t e i th e r re ta i n a n a tto rn e y to f i l e a pet i t i on f or di scr et i onar y r ev i ew or f i l e a pr o se peti t i on fo r d i s c ret i onar y r ev i ew. 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 hi n t hi r t y day s f r om t he d at e of ei t her t hi s opi ni on or t he l ast t i m el y m ot i on fo r re h e a rin g th a t w a s o v e rr u l e d b y th i s 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 u s t b e fi l e d w i th th i s C o u rt, a fte r w h i c h 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. 6 8 .3 ; 6 8 .7

. A n y p e ti ti o n fo r 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 l e 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 d is c re t io n a ry r e vie w. 12



## LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, 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 t he 20t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.