S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 1 

## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 06- 405- CR S HE I L A L ANE T T E CA L HOU N AP P E L L ANT A/ K /A S HE I L A L . CA L HOU N V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 213TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

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

----- ----- -- A ppel l antSh ei l a Lanet t e C al hou n pl ed gui l t y t o t hef t of pr oper t y val ued unde r $15 00 w i t h t w o pr i ort hef tco nvi ct i ons . The j ur y f ound hergui l t y, f ound t hats he had us ed orex hi bi t ed a d ea dl y w e a p o n dur i ng t he of f ens e, an d as se ss ed her puni sh m ent att en yea r s’ co nf i nem enti n t he I ns t i t ut i ona l D i vi si on3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S . C t. 1 3 9 6 (1 9 6 7 ). 2 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 ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ); 3 Mays v. State, 904 S . W . 2d 920, 922- 23 ( Tex. A pp. — For tW or t h 1995, no p e t.). See Pens on v. O hi o, 488 U. S. 75, 8 2
- 83, 109 S. Ct . 346, 351, 52 4 (1 9 8 8 ). 2 oft he Texa s D epa rt m entofCr i m i nalJu st i c e . T h et ri a lco urts ent enc ed herac cordi ngl y. A p p e l l a n t’ s c o u rt -ap p o i n ted ap p e l l a te c o u n se l h a s f il e d a m o ti o n to
w i t hdr aw as coun sel and a br i efi n suppo r toft hat m ot i on. I n t he br i ef , counsel aver s t hat , i n hi s pr of essi onal opi ni on, t hi s appeal i s f r i vol ous. C oun sel ’ s br i ef a n d m o ti o n m e e t t h e r e q u i rem e n ts o f A n de r sv. Ca lif

o r n ia by pr es ent i ng a 2 p r o f e s s io n a l e v a lu a t io n o ft h e r e c o r d d e m o n s t r a t in g w h y t h e r e a r e n o a r g u a b le g rou n d s fo r r e l i e f. A l th o u g h A p p e l l a n t w a s g i v e n an o p p o rt u n i ty to fi l e a b ri e f, sh e h as notdone s o. A f t eran appel l ant ’ s cour t - appo i nt ed coun sel f i l es a m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw on t he gr ound t hatt he app ea l i s f r i vol ous a n d f ul f i l l s t he r equ i r em ent s of A n de rs , t hi s cou r t i s obl i gat ed t o und er t ak e a n i nde pen den tex am i nat i on oft he
r ecor d. O nl y t he n m a y w e gr ant counsel ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw . Because

3 4 A ppel l ant ent er ed an open pl ea of gui l t y, our i ndep enden t r evi ew f orpot ent i al er r ori 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 ofherpl ea,S ee M onreal v. State, 9 9 S .W .3 d 6 1 5 , 6 2 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). 5 S ee Bledsoe 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 ). 6 3 er r ort hati s noti nde pen den t ofan d s uppor t s t he j udgm entofgui l t , an d e r r or occur r i ng af t erent r y oft he gui l t y pl ea. 5 W e have car ef ul l y r evi ew ed coun sel’ s br i efand t he r ecor d. W e agr ee w i t h c ouns el t hatt hi s app ea l i s w hol l y f r i vol ous an d w i t hout m e ri t; w e f i nd
n o th i n g i n th e re c o rd th a t a rg u a b l y m i g h t s u p p o rt th e a p p e a l . A c c o rd i n g l y , w e 6 g ran t co u n se l ’s m o ti o n to w i th d raw an d affi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL F: DA U PH I N O T, G A RD N ER, an d W A LKER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: M a r c h 6, 2008