### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03- 07 -00 650 -CR

Ro be r t T r e vin o Bo te llo , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-07 -20 2153 , HO NORAB LE CHARLES F . BAI RD , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
The trial c ourt convicte d appellant Rober t Trevino Bo t el lo of two counts of ag g ravated sexual ass a

u lt ; f o u n d tw o e nhance ment alleg ations to be true, includinga prior c onviction for bur g lary

with the intent to commit se x ual assault; and sentenc ed him to li fe imprisonment. See Tex. P enal Code Ann. §§ 12.42(c) (2), 22.021 ( West S upp. 2008). Appe llant’s appointed attorne y has filed a

brief c oncluding that the appe al is frivolous and without merit. Co u n s e l’ s brief me ets the re quirements of An de rs v . Ca lif

or nia , 3 8 6 U. S
. 7 3 8 , 7 4 3 -44 (1967), by p re s en t i n g a professional eva luation of the re cord a nd demonstrating that there are no arguable g rounds to be advanc ed. Se e Pe ns on v . O hio , 4 88 U. S. 7 5, 80 (1 98 8) ; An de rs , 386 U.S. at 74 3- 44 ; Hi

gh v . S tat e , 573 S.W. 2d 80 7, 81 1- 13 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tat e , 516 S.W .2d 68 4, 68 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 ); Ga ino us v . S tat e , 436 S.W .2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Ap pe lla nt’ s atto rn e y

se nt a pp e lla nt a c op y of the bri ef and adv ise d h im that he ha d th e ri g ht t oNo substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appe llant w ish to seek furthe r re view of 1 his case by

the cour t of criminal appe als, he must either r etain an at t o rn ey t o fi l e a petition for discretionar

y revie w or file a pro se petition for discretionary revie w. See ge nerally Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (g overningproce eding s in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). An y p et i t ion for dis c re tio na

ry re vie w mus t be fi le d with in t hir ty da y s f ro m th e date of

e ith e r t his op ini on

or the date this Court overrules the last ti m ely motion for rehe aringfiled. See Tex. R. App. P . 68.2. The petition must be filed with this Court, a fter which it will be forwa rded to the court of c ri m inal appea ls a long with the rest of the filings in the c ause. See Tex. R. App. P . 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discr etionary

revie w should comply

with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of

appellate proce dure. See Tex. R. App. P . 68.4, 68.5. 2 examine the rec ord and f ile a pro se brief. Se e An de rs , 3 86 U. S. at 74 4; J ac k son v. S tat e , 485 S.W .2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se br ief ha s been f iled. We h a ve c on sid e re d th e re c or d a nd c ouns e l’ s bri ef an d a g re e that th e a pp e a l is frivolous and with o u t merit. We have re viewed the evidenc e pre sented to the jury and the pr oc e dure s th a t w e re ob se rv e d and fi nd no thi ng in the re c or d that mig ht argua bly su pp or t th e a pp e a l. We gr ant counse l’s motion to wit hdrawand af firm the judg ment of convic tion. 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: August 29, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh