1 ... See Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 2 ... SeeT e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 3 2 .2 1 (a )(1 ), (d ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ).



## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08- 093- CR K E VI N W I NN T I T US A/ K /A AP P E L L ANT K E VI N T I T US V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

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

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

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I n Fe br uary 2006, A ppe l l antKevi n W i nn Ti t uspl ed gui l t y pur su antt o a p le a b a r g a in t o f o r g e ry b y p o s s e s s io n o f a c h e c k w it h in t e n tt o p a s s , a s t a t e ja il f el ony, 2a n d the tr i a l co u rtp l a c e d h i m o n d e ferred ad j u d i c a ti o n co m m u n i ty super vi si on f or t w o year s. I n A pr i l 20 07 , t he S t at e f i l ed a pet i t i on t o pr oceed3 ... 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S . C t. 1 3 9 6 (1 9 6 7 ). 2 to ad j u d i c a ti o n , a l l e g i n g tha t A p p e l l a n t ha d v i o l a ted the term s o f his co m m u n i ty su pervi si on by f ai l i ng t o r epo rt , l ea vi ng Tar r antCount y w i t houtau t hor i z at i on, f a ilin g t o n o t if yt h e c o m m u n it ys u p e rv is io n o f f ic e rw it h in f iv ed a y so fh is a d d r e s sc h a n g e , a n d f a ilin g t o s e rv et h irt yd a y sin ja il a sa c o n d i t i o n o fh is com m uni t y s upe rvi si on. Appel l antpl ed t r ue t o l ea vi ng Tar r antCount y w i t hout a u th o ri z a ti o n a n d to fa i l i n g to s e rv eth ere q u i re d th i rtyd a y si n j a i l . A fte r a h e a ri n g , th e tri a l c o u rt fo u n d a l l fo u r a l l e g a t io n s tru e , a d j u d i c a te d A p p e l l a n t’s gui l t , an d s ent enc ed hi m t o one year ’ s con f i nem enti n t he St at e J ai l D i vi si on of t he Texa s D epa rt m entofCr i m i nalJus t i ce . Appel l antt i m el y a ppe al ed. 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 counsel and a br i efi n suppo rtoft hatm 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 he appeal i s f r i vol ous. C oun sel ’ s br i ef a n d m o tio n m e e t t h e req u i rem e n ts o f A n der sv. Ca lif

o r nia 3by 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 f t 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 ea r en o a r g u a b le gr oun ds f orr el i ef . W e gave A ppel l antt he opp ort uni t y t o f i l e a pr o se r esponse, b u t he h a s n o t f i l e d o n e . T h e S tate also h a s n o t f i l e d a b ri e f. A ft eran 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 he gr ound t hatt he app ea l i s f r i vol ousan d f ul f i l l s t he r eq ui r em ent s of4 ... 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.). 5 ... See Pens on v. Ohi o, 488 U. S. 75, 82–8 3, 1 09 S . C t . 346, 351 (1 9 8 8 ).

6 ... See Bledsoe v. State, 17 8 S . W . 3 d 8 24, 827– 28 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 5 ); see al

so Meza v. State, 206 S . W . 3d 684, 685 n. 6 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 6 ). 3 A n ders , t hi s cou rti s obl i gat ed t o undert ak e an i nde pen den tex am i nat i on oft he r ec or d. 4O nl y t hen m ay w e gr antcounsel ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw . 5 W e have car ef ul l y r evi ew ed t he r ecor d and counsel ’ s br i ef . W e ag r ee w i t h c ouns elt hatt hi s app ea l i s w hol l y f r i vo l ou s and w i t houtm er i t ; w e f i nd 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 ea p p e a l. 6 A c c o r d i n g l y , we 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 RCU R I AM PA N EL: DA U PH I N O T, 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