1 ... See Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08- 080- CR DAV I D K E I T H S E L B Y AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 297TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A p p e l l a n t D a v i d K e i th S e l b yp l e a d e d g u il ty o n A p ri l 1 0 , 2 0 0 0 , to p o s s e s s i o n o f b e tw e e n o n e a n d fo u r g ra m so f c o c a i n e , a n d th e tri a l c o u rt
s e n t e n c e d h i m t o e i g h ty e a r s ’ d e f e r r e d a d j u d i c a t i o n c o mm u n i t ys u p e rv i s i o n . On O ct obe r3, 2007 , t he St at e f i l ed a p et i t i on t o pr oce ed t o a dj udi ca t i on, al l egi ng t hatSel by v i ol at ed ce rt ai n t er m s and co ndi t i onsofhi s com m uni t y s upe rvi si on. S el by pl eaded “t r ue” t o each ofthe al l egat i ons, an d t he t r i al courtadj udi cat ed2 ... S e l b ya rg u e si n h i s fi rs t, s e c o n d , a n d th i rd p o i n tsth a t th e tri a l c o u rt

err ed by f ai l i ng t o sua sp on t e ho l d a co m pe t en cy he ari ng . T he se po i n ts a re w i th o u t m e ri t. Se eMc D a ni el v. S tate , 9 8 S. W . 3d 704 , 7 10 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 20 03 ) ( st at i ng t hata t r i al courtm ustcondu cta com pet ency i nqu i ry on w het her to h o l d a j u rytri a l o n d e fe n d a n t’sc o m p e te n c yife v i d e n c e o f th e d e fe n d a n t’s com pet enc y i s br ought t o t he att ent i on of t he cou rt f r om any so ur ce an d t he evi den cer ai se s a bona f i de doubt as t o t he def end ant ’ s com pet enc y t o s t and tri a l ); Sp a rksv. S tate , N o. 0 2- 07- 002 85- C R, 2 008 W L 41 802 88, at*2–3 ( Tex. A pp. — F o rt W o rt h Se p t . 11 , 20 08 , n o p e t . ) ( m e m . o p . , n o t d e s i g n a t ed f or p u b l i c a ti o n ) (h o l d i n g th a t a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e to th e tri a l c o u rt th a t ra i s e d a b o n a fi d e d o u b t th a t a p p e l l a n t w a si n c o m p e te n t t o s t a n d tri a l ). S e l b y a rgu e s i n h i s f o u rt h , fi fth, a n d sixth p o i n ts th a t h i s ap p o i n te d a p p e ll a te cou ns elw asi nef f ec t i ve f or f ai l i ng t o r equ es ta com pet enc y he ar i ng, f orf ai l i ng t o a r r ang e f or exp ert t es t i m ony r ega r di ng hi s com pet enc y, and f or“ coe r ci ng” h i m i n to p l e a d i n g g u i l ty . T h e s e p o i n tsa rea l s o w i th o u tm e r it. See Sal i nasv. S tate , 163 S . W . 3d 734, 740 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2005 ) ( st at i ng t hatt o ov er com e t he pr es um pt i on ofr ea so nab l e p r of essi ona l as si st anc e, an y a l l ega t i on of i nef f ect i v e n ess m ustbe f i r m l y f oun ded i n t he r ecor d, and t he r ecor d m ust a ffir m a ti v e l yd e m o n s tra te th e a l l e g e d i n e ffe c ti v e n e s s ). 2 hi s gui l t and se nt enc ed hi m t o t w ent y- f i ve yea r s’ con f i nem ent . Se l by now a p p e a l s . W e w i l l a ffir m . S el by’ s court - appo i nt ed appel l at e counsel has f i l ed a m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw as cou ns el an d a bri ef i n sup po rt of t ha t m oti on . I n t he bri ef, c o u n s e l a v e rs t hat , i n hi s pr of es si ona l opi ni on, the ap pea li s f r i vol ous . Couns el ’ s br i efan d
m o ti o n m e e t t h e req u i rem e n ts o f A n dersv. Ca lif o r niaby pr es ent i ng a 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 yt h e r e a r e n o a r g u a b le gr oundsf orr el i ef . 386 U. S. 738 , 87 S. Ct . 1396 ( 196 7) . W e g aveSel by t he opp ort uni t y t o f i l e a pr o se br i ef , and he has f i l ed one. 23

O nce an appel l ant ’ s court - appo i nt ed at t or ney f i l es a m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e a p p e a l i s f r i v o l o u s a n d f u l f i l l s t h e r e q u i r e m ent s of A n ders , t hi s cou rti s obl i gat ed t o und ert ak e a n i nde pen den tex am i nat i on oft he
re c o rd . Se 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 ); Mays v. State, 904 S . W . 2d 920, 922– 23 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 1995, no p e t.). O n l y th e n m a y w e g ra n t c o u n s e l ’sm o ti o n to w i th d ra w . See Pens on v. Ohi o, 4 8 8 U .S . 7 5 , 8 2

– 8 3 , 1 0 9 S . C t. 3 4 6 , 3 5 1 (1 9 8 8 ). W e have car ef ul l y r evi ew ed t he r ecor d, coun sel ’ s br i ef , and S el by’ s pr o se br i ef . W e a gr eew i t h c ouns elt hatt hi s app ea l i s w hol l y f r i vol ousan d w i t hout
m e r it ; w e f in d n o t h in g in t h e re c o r d t h a tm ig h ta r g u a b lys u p p o rtt h e a p p e a l. 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 ); see al so Meza v. State, 2 0 6 S .W .3 d 6 8 4 , 6 8 5 n .6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). A c c o rd i n g l y , w e g ra n t c o u n s e l ’sm o ti o n t o w i th d ra w a n d a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t. P E RCU R I AM PA N EL: M EI ER, J. ; CA YC E, C. J. ; an d L I V I N G STO N , J. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: M a y 21, 2009