1 ... SeeTe x. R. App. P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DIS TRIC TOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-08 -293 -CR DONAL D LE ON C ALTO N II APPE LLAN T V . THE STAT E OFTE XAS STAT E

--- --- --- --- FROM THE 396T H DIS TRIC T CO URT OF TARR ANTCOU NTY

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

### MEMORAN DU M OP I NI ON 1

--- --- --- --- Appe ll antDon ald Le on Cal ton II en ter ed an open plea of gu il ty to aggr avat ed ass aul t o n a pu bli c ser vant . The tri al cour t a sse sse d h is puni shme nt at two year s’ conf ine ment . Cal ton ’s cour t-a ppoi nte d appe ll ate coun sel has fil ed a mo tio n t o wi thd raw as coun sel an d a br iefin su ppor t o f t hatmot ion . Co uns el’ s b rie f a nd moti on2 ... 386 U. S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 139 6 ( 1967 ). 2 meetth e r equi reme nts of Anders v. Cal ifo rni a 2 bypr ese nti ng a p rof ess ion al eval uat ion of the rec ord demo nst rat ing why theap pea l i s f riv olo us. See McCoy
v. Court o f Appea ls of W is. , Dist. 1 , 4 86 U .S. 429 , 4 44, 108 S. Ct. 189 5, 1905 (1 988) (s tat ing th at appe al is fr ivo lou s if “theclien t’sinter est s would no t be ser ved by pro cee din g wi th th e appea l”) ; High v. S tate , 5 73 S .W.2d 8 07, 813 (Te x. Cri m. App. [P ane l O p.] 197 8) (di scu ss in g t hata “fr ivo lou s a ppea l” bri ef m ust“d isc uss ei the r w hy thetr ial co urt ’s rul ing wasco rre ct or why the appe ll antwasno t h arme d b y the rul ing ofth e c our t”) . The Sta te has no t f il ed any res pons e t o c ou nsel’s Andersbr ief . Lik ewi se, Ca lto n wa s g ive n t he oppo rtu nit y t o f il e a pr o s e b rie f, buthedi d n ot do so. As th e rev iew ing co urt , w e mu st cond uctan in depe nden t e val uat ion of there cor d t o d ete rmi ne whet herco uns el is cor rec t i n d ete rmi nin g t ha t the appe al is fri vol ous . See Sta ffo rd v. Sta te , 8 13 S .W.2d 5 03, 511 (Te x. Cri m. App. 199 1); Mays v. Sta te , 9 04 S .W.2d 9 20, 923 (T ex . App.

— For t Worth 1995 , n o p et. ). Onl y t hen may we gra nt coun sel ’s moti on to wit hdr aw. See Pens on v. Ohi

o , 4 88 U.S. 75, 82–8 3, 109 S. Ct. 346 , 3 51 ( 1988 ). Be cau se Cal ton en ter ed an open pl ea of gui lty , o ur ind epe nden t r evi ew for pot ent ial er ror is li mit ed to pot ent ial juri sdi cti onal defect s, thevo lun tar ine ss of Cal ton ’s ple a,3

err or tha t i s n ot ind epe nden t o f a nd sup por ts theju dgme nt of gu il t, and err or occ urr ing af teren tryof th e g uil ty ple a. See Monr eal v. St ate , 9 9 S .W.3d 6 15, 620 (Te x. Cri m. A pp . 2003) ; Young v. S tate , 8 S. W .3d 656 , 6 66–6 7 ( Tex. Cri m. App. 200 0). W e h ave car efu ll y r evi ewed th e r eco rd and coun sel ’s bri ef. We ag ree wit h c ouns el tha t t hisap pea l i s wh oll y f riv olo us, th at Cal ton ’s int ere stswou ld notbese rve d b y p roc eed ing wi th the appe al, and tha t C alt on was notha rmed by theco urt ’s rul ing s. See McCoy , 4 86 U .S. at444 , 1 08 S . C t. a t 1 905; Ble dso e v. S tate, 178 S. W .3d 824 , 8 27–2 8 ( Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 2005 ); High , 5 73 S.W.2d at 813. W e ther efo re gra nt coun sel ’s moti on to with dra w and a ffi rm thetr ial co urt ’s jud gmen t.

SUE W ALKE R J U S T I C E PANE L: LIVI NGST ON, DAUPH INOT, an d WALKER , J J. DO NO T PU BLIS H Tex. R. Ap p. P. 47.2 (b) DELI VERE D: Mar ch 19, 2009