### NUM BER 13-07- 0059 0-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

RA UL R OSA S, 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 19t h Dist rict C ou rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s R od rigu ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lan t, Rau l Ros as, Jr ., ple aded g uil ty to ro bber

y , a sec ond- deg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 29. 02 ( Ver non 200 3)

. The tr ial co urt s entenc ed appe ll ant t o tw enty y ear s i n the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Depa rt ment of Cri minal Justi ce. See id. § 12.3 3 (Verno n 20 03) ( providing f or a pun ishm ent range of tw o to tw ent y y ears f or a2

sec ond deg re e felony ). Con cl udi ng the appeal is w hol ly f ri v olo us, appel lan t' s c ounse l filed
a br i ef p r es en ti ng o ne a r g ua bl e g r ou nd o f er r or
. W e affi r m. I. C ompli ance w it h And ers v. California App ellant 's court-app ointe d cou nsel f iled a request to wi thd raw as atto rney of reco rd and a brief

in w hich she conclud ed th at there is not hing in the record w hich w ould supp ort an appe al in this case and that, in her prof ession al opin ion, th e ap pea l is w holly f riv olou s. And ers v. California , 386 U .S. 738, 744 ( 1967)

. Appel lan t' s b ri ef meets t he r eq uir ements
o f And ers
. Id . at 744- 45; see Hi gh v . St ate , 573 S. W .2d 8 07, 8 12 ( Tex . C ri m. App. [Pa nel Op.] 1978)

. In c ompli ance w it h And ers , c ounse l pr esent ed a pr ofessi onal ev alu ati on of the
re cor d i nclu d in g, a mong othe r thi ng s, a r ev iew of (1 ) admoni shment s g iv en, ( 2) the
ex pla nati on of t he puni shment ra ng e and cons eq uence s of an open ple a pr ov ide d by the
cour t, (3 ) the fr ee and v olu ntar y nature of his pl ea, ( 4) the suffici ency of the e v ide nce, and (4) the ef f ectiveness of

coun sel. Cou nsel al so re ferr ed th is C our t t o the foll ow ing i ss ue w hic h, i n her opi nio n, i s t he onl y i ss ue w hic h mi g ht ar g uabl y su ppor t an appeal : wh e th e r the t ri al cour t abu sed it s dis cr eti on w hen i t i mposed the max imum senten ce of tw enty ye ar s f or

appell ant' s s econd deg re e felony

off ense of ro bber

y
. See Ande rs , 386 U .S. at 74 4; Cur ri e v . St ate , 516 S.W .2d 6 84, 6 84 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1974) ; see als o High , 573 S.W .2d a t 812

. Cou nsel notes that any sent ence impos ed by the tr ial co urt i s r ev iew ed unde r an abus e of di sc re ti on sta ndar d and that the g ener al ru le is that a sent ence w it hin the st atuto ry r ang e w il l not b e dis tur bed on appeal

. Jac ks on v . St ate , 680 S.W .2d 809, 814 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1984) ( en b a n c ). T h e t ri a l c o u rt s e n t e n c e d a p p e ll a n t wit h in t h e ra n ge o f p u n is h m e n t p ro vid e d b y la w. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . §§ 12.33, 29.0 2.3

Cou nsel has i nformed t his C our t t hat she noti fied appel lan t of the foll ow ing : (1 ) after
re v iew ing the re cor d, s he w as unabl e to find a n y e rrors w hic h s he felt w oul d s uppor t an app eal; (2) she is requesting to w ithdra w as coun sel; an d (3) appe llant ha s the right to f ile a pr o s e br ief. See Ande rs , 386 U .S. at 74 4- 45; s e e a l s o S t a f f o r d v
. Sta te , 813 S.W .2d 503 , 509 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91) (en ba nc); H igh , 573 S .W .2d at 813 . Counse l has also advised this C o u rt t h a t s he h as f orw arde d to ap pellan t (1) a copy of the brief

w hich cont ains her request to w ithdra w a s co unse l o f

record, an d (2) copies of the clerk's record and t he r epor

ter 's r ecor d i n thi s a ppeal

. Mo re than thi rt y day s h av e pass ed, and app ell ant h a s n o t f il e d a n y pro se br ief. See Ande rs , 386 U .S. at 74 4- 45; see a lso Hi gh , 573 S.W .2d at 81 3. II. I ndependen t R ev iew The Supr eme C our

t has adv is ed appe ll ate co ur ts that upon r ecei v ing a “ friv olo us appeal ” br ief, t hey

must co nduct “ a full ex aminat ion of all th e p roceedi ng [s] to deci de
w het her the case is w holly f riv olou s.” Pen son v. Oh io , 488 U .S. 75, 8 0 ( 1988) ; see Yb arra
v. Stat e , 9 3 S

. W

. 3 d 9 2 2 , 9 2 6 ( T e x. A p p
. – Co rp u s C h ri s t i 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t

. ). A c c o rd in gl y, we hav e c ar efull y

r ev iew ed th e reco rd and hav e consi der ed th e i ss ue r ais ed i n the br ief, an d
w e hav e found not hin g that w oul d ar g uabl y su ppor t an appeal

. See Staff

ord , 813 S.W .2d at 50 9. W e ag re e w it h c ounse l that the appeal is w hol ly f ri v olo us and concl ude the appea l is w it hout meri t. See B led soe v. Stat e , 178 S.W .3d 8 24, 8 27- 28 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005) ( " D u e t o the natu re of And ers br iefs, by

i ndi cat ing i n the opi nio n tha t i t c onsi der ed t he is sues r ais ed i n the bri efs and re v iew ed the recor d f or rev er si ble err or

but found none, the court of app eals m et th e requireme nts of Te x as Rule of

Appe llate Proce dure 47.1 .").4 III

. Con cl usi on The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt is aff ir med. Addi ti onal ly , in acco rd ance w it h And ers , app e l l a n t ' s c o u n s e l h a s a s k e d p e r mi s s i o n t o w i t h d r a w a s c o u n s e l fo r a p p e l l a n t. See And ers , 3 8 6 U .S. at 7 44. W e g ra nt c ounse l' s mot ion to w it hdr aw
. W e or der co unsel to not ify a pp el l an t of t he d i s po s i ti on o f t hi s a pp ea l a nd o f t he a v ai l ab i l i ty o f di s c r etion ary
re v iew

. See E

x p ar te Wil son , 956 S.W .2d 2 5, 2 7 ( T e x . C ri m. App. 1997) ( en banc ) (p er curiam ).

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 2nd day

of Dec ember , 200 8.