### NUM BER 13-08- 0001 4-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
CA RL A NT HON Y J ONE S, A pp ellan t,
v. TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee. On appeal fr om the 252nd Distr ic t Court of

Jef ferso n 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 R o d rig u ez a n d G arza M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez On Feb ruary 22, 200 7, ap pellan t, Carl An tho ny Jon es, w as indicte d f or the o f f ense of robbe ry , a sec ond- deg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 29. 02 (Verno n 20 03). Jones ente re d i nto a pl ea ag re ement w it h the Sta te i n w hic h he p le a d ed g uil ty to the ind ic ted o ff ense in ex chang e for a r ecommendat ion by the Stat e tha t hi s a dju dic ati on of g uil t be deferr ed and that he be pla ced on c ommunit y su per v is ion for s ev en y ear s. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42.12 (V er non Su pp. 2 008)

. On Apr il 23, 2 007, the t ri al2

court ac ce p te d th e pl e a agre e m e n t, de f e rre d ad ju d ica ti o n , a n d pl a ce d Jo n e s o n c ommunit y super v is ion

. Subs eq uentl y , t he St ate mov ed to r ev oke Jones ’s co mmunity su per v is ion o n the g ro unds that he v iol ated the t er ms of hi s c ommunit y su per v is ion by pos ses si ng a c ontr oll ed subs tanc e—c ocai ne. Jones ans w er ed “ tr ue” to the a ll eg ati on i n the moti on to rev oke. The tr ial co urt g ra nted the S tate’ s mot ion , r ev oked Jones ’s co mmunity su per v is ion , adj udi cat ed his g uil t, and s entenc ed him t o t wen ty y ear s’ co nfinement. J ones’ s c our t- appoi nted appel lat e c ounse l has filed an And ers br i ef. W e affi r m. I. A NDE RS B R I EF Pur suantto And ers v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) , Jones ’s co urt- appoi nted app ell at e c ou ns el ha s fi l ed a br i ef w i th th i s C ou rt, s ta ti ng th at hi s r ev i ew of the record y ielded no g roun ds or error upo n w hich an app eal can be pred icated . Althou gh counse l’s br ief do e s n o t adv ance any ar g uabl e g ro unds of err or , i t doe s p re senta pr ofessi onal
ev alu ati on of the re cor d demons tr ati ng w hy ther e ar e no ar g uabl e g ro unds to be adv anced on appe al. See In r

e Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d 4 03, 4 07 n. 9 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008) ( “I n Tex as, an And ers

br ief need not s peci fical ly adv ance ‘arg uabl e’ poi nts of er ro r if co unsel finds none, but i t mus t pr ov ide r ecor d referenc es to the f act s and proc edur al hi sto ry and
se t o u t p e rt in e n t le gal au th o rit ie s. ”) (ci ti n g Hawk ins v. Sta te , 1 1 2 S

. W

. 3 d 3 4 0 , 3 4 3 -4 4 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no p et.) ); Staf for d v . St ate , 8 1 3 S

. W

. 2 d 5 0 3 , 5 1 0 n
. 3 ( T e x. Cr im. App. 1991)

. In compl ian ce w it h Hi

gh v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 807, 813 (Tex

. Cr im. App. [Panel Op. ] 197 8), app ellant ’s counse l has caref ully discussed w hy, unde r controlling autho rity , the re are no er r or s i n th e tr i al c ou rt’ s j ud g me nt

. C ou ns el ha s i nfo r me d th i s C ou rt th at he h as: (1 ) ex amined the re cor d and found no ar g uabl e g ro unds to ad v ance on appe al, ( 2) se rv edT he T exas Cour t of C r i m i nal Appeal s has hel d t hat “ t he p r o se r esponse nee d no t com pl y wi t h t he 1 rul es of a p p el 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 ns e s ho ul d i de nti fy for t he co urt t hose i ssues w hi 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 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 a cop y of t he brief a nd coun sel’s m otion t o w ithdra w o n Jon es, an d (3) inf orme d him of his rig ht to rev iew the record an d to f ile a pro se respo nse wi thin th irty days. See An ders , 386

1 U. S. a t 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.2 3. More tha n an ade quate period o f t ime h as passe d, and Jo nes has not 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 ent ir e re co rd a n d c o unsel ’s br ief and hav e found nothi ng thatw oul d ar g uabl y su ppor t an appeal

. See B led

soe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 8 24, 8 2 6
- 2 8 ( T e 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 br iefs, by i ndi cat ing i n the opi nio n tha t i t c o n sid e red the is sues r ais ed i n the br iefs and r ev iew ed th e r ecor d for
rev ersible error but f oun d no ne, the court of app eals m et th e requireme nt of Te x as Rule of Appel lat e Pr ocedu re 47.1 .” ); Sta fford , 8 1 3 S .W .2 d at 509. Ac cor din g ly , w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. III . M OT I ON TO W IT H D R AW In ac cor dance w it h And ers , J ones’ s a ttor ney has asked thi s C our

t for per mis si on to
w it hdr aw as couns el for appe ll ant. See Ande rs , 386 U .S. at 74 4; see als o In re Sc hul m an , 2 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 4 0 8 n. 1 7 (cit in g Jef fer y v. State , 903 S.W .2d 7 76, 7 79- 80 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 199 5, no pet. ) ( not ing that “[i]f an att orne y

b e li e v es the app eal is f riv olou s, he m ust
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 appo int ed atto rney must f ile a mo tion to w ithdra w accom pan ied by a brief showing the app ellate courtN o sub st i t ut e cou nsel wi l l be appo i nt ed. Shoul d ap pel l ant wi sh t o see k f ur t her r ev i ew oft 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 ret ai n an att orn ey t o f i l e a pe t i t i on for d i s c re ti o na ry 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 r e m e n ts o f R u l e 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 t h a t t h e a p p e a l i s f ri vo lo u s
. ”) (c it a t io n s o m it t e d ))

. W e gr a n t c o u n s e l’ s m o t io n t o wit h d ra w. W it h in f iv e day s o f the dat e of thi s C our t’ s o pin ion , c ounse l is or der ed to se nd a copy of the o pin ion a nd j udg ment t o J ones and t o adv is e hi m of his r ig ht t o fil e a p eti ti on for 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 r e Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 2 412 n. 35; Ex par

te O wens , 206 S.W .3d 670 , 673 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06).

_________

_________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Do NotPubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.2( b) Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 15t h day

of Oct ober , 200 9.