### NUM BER 13-10- 077- 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

JOH N EDW

A RD SH ET TE RS, JR ., A pp ellan t,

v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 3 6th D istrict Co urt of A rans as Co un ty , T exas .


## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , B en av id es , 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 On J une 12, 2009, appel lan t, John Edw ar d Shet ter s, Jr. p le aded g uil ty to the
o ffe n s e o f b u r g l a r

y o f a buil din g , T EX . P EN AL C ODE A NN . S EC . 30. 02 ( Ver non 200 6) , and

w as sent e nced to tw o y ear s’ co nfinement pr obated for fiv e y ear s. O n J anuar y 6, 2010, the S tate filed a mot ion to re v oke She tt e rs’ s p ro bati on, a ll eg ing thathe h ad v iol ated it s2

condi ti ons. On F e b ru ar y 4, 2010, Shett er s, after bei ng admoni shed re g ar din g the
c o n s e qu e n c e s o f

h is p le a in o p e n c o u rt , e n t e re d a p le a o f t ru e a n d wa s s e n t e n c e d t o two y ear s i n a s tate jai l facil it y
. Con cl udi ng that"ther e ar e no meri tor iou s i ss ues for appe al, " appel la n t' s co unsel fil ed a br ief i n w hic h he re v iew ed th e mer it s, or l ack ther eof, of the ap pe al

. W e affi r m. I. Complianc e w ith An der s v. Cal if or ni a Appel lan t' s cour

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 br 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. [Panel Op. ] 197 8) ; see a lso In r e Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d 4 03, 407 n.9 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008) ( "In Tex as, an And ers brief nee d no t specif ically

advance 'arguab le' point s of error i f co u n s e l f in d s n one , but it must pr ov ide r ecor d r e f e re n ce s to the facts and procedu 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 3 40, 343- 44 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Christi 20 03, 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 , f ollowi ng his rev iew of the Court's f ile and the tran scripts, his
re sear ch, and his co rr espon dence w it h appel lan t, couns e l pr esent ed a pr ofessi onal evaluation of

the reco rd, includin g, amon g oth er things, 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 ent enci ng , r ig ht t o pr esent
ev ide nce dur ing the g uil t/i nnoce nce and pun is hment s tag es, and ri g ht t o appea l. See And ers , 386 U .S. at 74 4; Cur ri e v. State , 516 S.W .2d 684, 684 (Tex . Cr im. 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 rec o rd and
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 infor med thi s C our t t hatT 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 he pr ov ide d appel lan t w it h a c opy o f t h e trans cr ipt s i n hi s c ase, a c opy of the b ri ef, and not if ied ap pellan t of

h is right t o rev iew

t he record and t o f ile a pro se respo nse to coun sel's brief and mo tion to w ithdra w w ithin thirty 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. at 74 4- 45; Sta f f ord , 813 S.W .2d a t 509; Hi gh , 573 S.W .2d a t 813

. II. In dep end entR ev iew T h e Un it e d St a te s S u p re m e Co u r t a d vis 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 appeal " br ief, t hey m u st c o n d u ct "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 200 3 , 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 rt an appe al. See Bledsoe v. Sta te , 178 S.W .3d 8 24, 8 26 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 200 5); Staff

ord , 8 1 3 S

. W .2d at 509 . W e agree w ith cou nsel th at th e ap pea l is w holly friv olo us and w it hout meri t. See B led soe , 178 S.W .3d a t 827 -28 ( " Du e t o the natu re of And ers b r i e fs , b y

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 th 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 th e re cor d for re v er si ble er ro r but found none, the cour t of ap peal s metthe requireme nts of

Te x as Rule of

Appe llate Proce dure 47.1 ."). III. Conclus ion The jud g ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med. In ac cor dance w it h And ers , app ellant 's attor ney ha s a sk e d thi s C our

t for per mis si on to w it hdr aw as co unsel for a ppel lan t. SeeN 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 And ers , 386 U .S. at 74 4; see als o In re Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d at 408 n.17 (c it ing Jeffe ry
v. State , 903 S.W .2d 7 76, 7 79- 80 ( Tex . Ap p.–D alla s 1 9 9 5 , 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 re pr esent ing the a ppel lan t. To w it hdr a w f ro m r epr esent ati on, t he appo int ed at tor ney mustfil e a mot ion to w it hdr aw
acc ompani ed by

a br ief s how ing the appel lat e c our t that the appeal is friv olo us. ") (c it ati ons
om itted )). W e gran t h is motio n to wi thd raw . 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 opi nio n and jud g ment t o appel lan t and t o a d vis e a p p e ll a n to f

h is ri gh tt 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). Del iv er ed and filed the 5th d ay of Aug ust , 201 0.