### NUM BER 13-09- 0053 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 CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
M ICH A EL L EE D EL GA DO, A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 37 7t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of Vict oria Co un ty , 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 Y añ ez a n d G arza Memoran du m Op inio n by C hie f J us tice Vald ez On March 18 , 200 5, a jury convicted app ellant , Michael Le e Delgado, of the of f ense of indec ency

w it h a chil d, a sec ond- deg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 21. 11(a )(1), ( d) (Vern o n S upp . 200 9). Th e jury assesse d pu nishm ent at ten y ears’ impr is onment i n the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Justi ce, w it h2

the s entenc e s uspen ded and co mmunity su per v is ion i mposed, pl us a $ 1 0,000 fine. On J un e 19 , 20 09 , th e St at e fi l ed a mo ti on t o r ev ok e, al l eg i ng v ar i ou s v i ol at i on s o f t he t er ms of Del g ado’s communi ty su per v is ion

. Del g ado pl eaded “ tr ue” to faili ng to: ( 1) pay
su p e rvisio n fe e s; (2) pa y f in e s; an d (3) rep o rto n s e vera l o cc a sio n s. Fol lo wing a he a rin g, the t ri al cour

t ac cept ed D elg ado’ s p lea s o f “tr ue” and found thos e v iol ati ons to be tr ue. The trial court also foun d tha t Delgado com mitt ed a dditio nal vi olatio ns listed in th e Sta te’s moti on to r ev oke by : (1 ) lea v ing the coun ty of approv ed res ide nce w it hout firs t obt ain ing
w ri tten per mis si on; ( 2) fail ing to compl ete 6 00 hours of community

serv ic e rest it uti on; a nd (3 ) faili ng to atten d a s ex off ender tr eatment prog ra m. The t ri al cour t s entenc ed D elg ado to t en y ears’ i mpri sonmentand ass ess ed a $10,000 f ine . Del g ado app eal s t he r ev ocat ion of his co mmunity

su per v is ion

. W e aff ir m.

I. A NDE RS B R I EF Pursuantto And ers v. California , 3 8 6 U

. S . 738 , 744 (1967 ), Delg ado ’s
cour t- appoi nted appel lat e c ounse l has filed a br ief w it h thi s Cour t, sta ti ng thathi s rev iew of the r ecord y iel ded no g ro unds o r e rror upon w hic h an appeal ca n be pr edi cat ed. T hou gh coun sel prese nts “ issues” in his brief , he con clude s that these “issues” lack merit and t hat a ny appeal i n thi s c ase w oul d be friv olo us. See i d. Cou nsel ’s br ief meets the
r e q u i r e me n t s o f And ers as it present s a prof ession al evaluation dem onst rating w hy the re
a re n o a rgu abl e g ro unds to ad v ance on appe al. See In r e Sc hul m an , 2 5 2 S

. W

. 3 d 4 03, 407 n.9 (T ex. C rim. App

. 200 8) (“In T exas, a n And ers b rief n eed not spe cif ically

advance ‘arg uabl e’ poi nts of er ro r if co unsel finds none, but itm ustprov ide record referenc es to t he fa ct s a n d pro ce d u ra l h ist o ry an d se t o u t p e rt in e n t le gal au th o ri t i e s
. ” ) (ci ti n g Haw kins v. State , 112 S.W .3d 3 40, 3 43- 44 ( T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no p et.) ); Sta fford v.T 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 nee d no t com pl y wi t h t he 1 rul es of ap pe l l ate pro c ed ure i n o rde r t o b e c on s i de red

. R athe r, t he res po n s 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 de r i n de ci di ng whet her t he ca se pre s en t s an y m eri t ori ou s i s s ue s
. ” I n r e Schulm an , 252 S. W

. 3d 4 03, 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 , 95 5 S

. W

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

. ))

. 3 State , 813 S.W .2d 503 , 510 n.3 (T ex. C rim. App . 199 1). In c ompli ance w it h Hi

gh v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 807, 81 3 ( Tex . C ri m. App. [Pa nel Op. ] 197 8), Delgado’s coun sel has caref ully d iscussed w hy, unde r controlling autho rity , the re
are no errors i n the trial court ’s j u d gm ent . Counse l has informe d this Court th at 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 c opy of the br ief and couns el’ s motion to w it hdr aw on Del g ado, and ( 3) i nformed D elg ado
o f h is righ t to rev iew

the re cord and to fil e a p ro se r espon se. See An ders , 386 U .S. at 1 744; Sta fford , 813 S.W .2d a t 510 n.3; see als o In re Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 409 n.23

. More tha n a n a d e qu a t e p e riod of time h as pa ssed, and Delg ado has no t f iled a pro se
re spons e. See In r

e Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 409

. II. I NDEPE NDENT R EVI EW Upo n r ecei v ing an And ers br ief, w e mustco nducta full ex aminat ion of all the pr oceed ing s to deter mine 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)

. W e hav e r ev iew ed th e en ti re r e co rd and couns el’ s b ri ef and hav e found nothi ng that w oul d arg uabl y suppor t an appeal

. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 8 24, 826- 2 8 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p
. 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ D u e t o t h e n a t u r e o f And ers b r i e fs , b y i n d i c a t i n g in the opi n i o n t h a t i t c o 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 a n d r e v i e w e d t h e r e cor d for
rev ersible error but fo und non e, th e cou rt of app eals m et th e requireme nt of Te x as Rule of Appel lat e Procedu re 47.1 .” ); Sta fford , 813 S.W .2d a t 509

. Acc or din gly, we a f f irm t he jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.N o sub st i t ut e counsel w i l l be appoi nt ed. Shoul d D el gado wi sh t o seek fu r t her re v i ew of t hi s case 2 by t he T ex as C ou rt of C ri m i na l A pp ea l s , he m us t ei t he r r etai n a n a tto rn e y t o fi l e a pe t i t i on for di s c ret 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 C our 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 ru l e 6 8 .4 o f t h e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e lla te P ro c e d u re
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 4.
4 III . M OT I ON TO W IT H D R AW In acco rd ance w it h And ers , Del g ado’ s attor ney has ask ed thi s Cou rt for per mis si on to w it hdr aw

as co unsel for a ppel lan t. See Ande rs , 3 8 6 U

. S

. a t744; s e e a lso In re Schu lm an , 2 5 2 S. W .3 d at 40 8 n. 1 7 (cit in g Jef fer y v . St ate , 9 0 3 S

. W

. 2 d 7 7 6 , 7 7 9 -8 0 (T e x. App.–D all as 1995, no pet .) ( noti ng that “[i ]f an attor ney bel iev es the a ppeal i s fr iv olo us, he must w it hdr aw

from r epr esent ing the appel lan t. To w it hdr aw from r epr esent ati on, t he appoi nted attor ney

mus t f ile a m oti on to w it hdr aw ac compani ed by

a br ief s how ing the appel lat e cour

t t hat t he appe al is fri v olo us” ) (c it ati ons omit ted) ). W e g ra nt c ounse l’ s mot ion to w it hdr aw
. W it hin fiv e day s o f t he date of t his Cou rt ’s opi nio n, couns el is or der ed to se nd
a c opy of the o pin ion and jud g ment t o D elg ado and to adv is e hi m of his r ig ht t o fil e a p e t it io n fo r d is c re t io n a ry r e vie w. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 8.4; see als o In re Sc hul m an , 252 2 S.W .3d a t 412 n.35 ; Ex par te O wens , 206 S.W .3d 6 70, 6 73 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

.

_________

_________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.2( b) Del iv er ed and filed the 10th day of June, 2010.