1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4.
2 ... S eeT e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 2 9 .0 3 (a )(2 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ).



## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08- 351- CR
CL I NT ON J UNI OR B AGB Y, I I I AP P E L L ANT A /K /A C L IN T O N J . B A G B YIII V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 372ND DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A p p e lla n tC lin t o n J u n io r B a g b y , III, a /k /a C lin t o n J . B a g b yIII , w a iv e d h is ri g h t to a j u rytri a l a n d e n te re d a n o p e n p l e a o f g u ilt yt o a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ry wi t h a d e a d l ywe a p o n — a f i r e a r m. 2T h e tri a l c o u rt p o s tp o n e d B a g b y ’s
se n ten c i n g p e n d i n g the p rep a rati o n o f a p re-se n ten c e i n v e sti g a ti o n ( P S I ) rep o rt .3 ... S ee Tex . Penal C ode A nn. § 1 2. 32 ( a) ( V er non 20 03 ) ( “A n i ndi vi dual

adj udge d gui l t y ofa f el ony ofthe fi r stde gr ees hal l bepuni sh ed by i m p ri s o n m e n t i n th e i n s ti tu ti o n a l d i v i s i o n fo r l i fe o rf o ra n yte rm o f n o t m o re t han 9 9 yearsorl ess t han 5 year s. ”) 2 W i t houtobj ec t i on byBagbyan d a ft ert he PSI w as con si der ed and f i l ed by t he t r i al court , t he t r i al courtsent enced B agby to a term o ft hi rt y- f i ve year s’ i nca r ce r at i on. 3B a g b yn o w a p p e a lsh isc o n v ic t io n a n d s e n t e n c e . W e w ill
a f f i r m. Bag 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 a s c o u n s e l a n d a b ri e f i n s u p p o rt o f th a t m o t io n . I n t h e b ri e f, c o u n s e l a v e rs t hat , i n he rpr of es si ona l opi ni on, t he app ea l i s f r i vol ous . Couns el ’ s br i efan d
m o ti o n m e e t th e r e q u i rem e n ts o f A n der sv. 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 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 e a r e n o a r g u a b le gr oundsf orr el i ef. 3 86 U . S. 738, 87 S. Ct . 1396 ( 196 7) . Bagb y ha s f i l ed a p ro se b ri e f i n w h i c h h e e n u m e rate s tw o p o ten ti a l so u rce s o f error. T h e S tate h a s n o t f i l e d a b ri e f. A s t he r evi ew i ng c ourt , w e m us tc onductan i nde pen den tev al uat i on of t he r ec or d t o de t er m i ne w het herco uns eli s cor r ec ti n det er m i ni ng t hatt he
a p p e a l i s fri v o l o u s . S e eS taffo rd v. S tate , 8 1 3 S . W . 2 d 5 0 3 , 5 1 1 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 1 ); Ma ys v. S tate , 9 0 4S .W .2 d 9 2 0 , 9 2 3 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 1 9 9 5 , n o 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 ’s m o ti o n to w i th d ra w . S ee4 ... Bag b yargues i n hi s f i r sti ssue t hathi s appoi nt ed t r i al counsel w as

i nef f ec t i ve f orf ai l i ng t o prep ar e f ort r i alan d a ss ur i ng Bag by t hatt he “l eni ent Judg e”w oul d a ss es s a se nt enc e f i ve yea r s orl es s. Bagbyar gue s i n hi s se con d is s u e th a t h i s g u i l ty p l e a w a s i n v o l u n ta ry . T h e g i s t o f B a g b y ’s c o m p la in t s is t hathe w as pr event ed f r om m aki ng an i nf or m ed choi ce bet w een havi ng t he t r i al j udg e asses s puni shm entr at hert han a j ur y; t hus, he r ecei ved a l ong ersent ence th a n h e h o p e d fo r. B a g b y ’si s s u e sa re w i th o u t m e ri t. S e e Sa l i n a s v. S tate , 163 S. W . 3d 734 , 740 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 200 5) ( st at i ng t hat t o ov ercom e t he pr es um pt i on ofr ea so nab l e p r of es si ona l as si st anc e, any a l l ega t i on of i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s m us t be f i r m l y f ou nd e d i n t he r e c or d, a nd t he r e c or 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 t iv e n e s s ); see al so Lem m onsv. S tate , 133 S. W . 3d 751 , 757 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2004, pe t . r ef ’ d) ( st at i ng t hat“ a p l ea ofgui l t y i s notr end er ed i nvol unt ary m er el y beca us e t he def end ant r ecei ved a gr eat erpuni shm entt han anti ci pat ed orbecause he di d n otasses s e v e ryre l e v a n t fa c to r w h e n e n te ri n g i n to h i sd e c i s i o n to p l e a d g u i l ty ” ). 3 Pen s o nv. O hio , 48 8 U . S . 75 , 82 –8 3, 10 9 S. C t . 34 6, 35 1 ( 19 88 ) . Because Bagbyen t er ed an ope n pl ea ofgui l t y, ouri nde pen den tr evi ew f orpot ent i aler r or i s l i m i t ed t o potent i al j ur i sdi ct i onal def ect s, t he vol untar i ness ofBag by’ s pl ea, er r ort hati s noti nde pen den tofan d s upport s t he j udgm entofgui l t , an d e r r or o c c u rri n g a fte r e n tryo f th e g u i l typ l e a . S e eMo n rea l v. S tate , 99 S . W . 3d 615, 6 2 0 ( T ex . C r i m . A pp . 2 0 0 3 ) ; Yo ungv. S tate , 8 S. W . 3d 656, 666– 67 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). W e h a v e c a re fu l l y re v i e w e d th e re c o rd , c o u n s e l ’s b ri e f, a n d B a g b y ’s p ro s e b ri e f. 4 W e ag ree tha t t h e ap p e a l i s w h o l l yfr i v o l o u s a n d w i th o u t m e ri t,
a n d w e fi n d n o th i n g i n t h e re c o rd t h a t m i g h t a rg u a b l ys u p p o rt th 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 so4

Meza v. S tate, 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 R CU R I AM PA N EL: M EI ER, G A RD N ER, an d W A LKER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: M a y 21, 2009