NO. 07-08 -047 9-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D MA Y15, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ BOBB YW AY NE TERRY , Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 47 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; TH NO. 576 53-A; HON. HAL MINER, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Abate and Remand

_________

_________

_________

_____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. After a j ur

y tr ial , app ell ant B obby

W ay ne Ter ry

was conv ict e d of the o ffense of burglary of a buildin g. Pun ishm ent w as assesse d by the jury at two y ears con f inem entin a s tate jai l facil ity

and a fine of $1800.S e e A n d e rs v . C a lifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 7 4 4 -4 5 , 8 7 S .C t. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L .E d .2 d 4 9 3 (1 9 6 7 ). 1 S u c h n o ti c e i s a n e l e m e n t o f c rim i n a l tre s p a s s . See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 3 0
. 0 5 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( Ve r n on 2 S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 2 Appel lan t’ s c ounse l has filed a motion to w it hdraw , tog ether w it h an A n de r

s ’ br ief 1 w herein he c erti fies that, after di li g entl y

se a rch ing the re cord, he has co ncl uded t hat appel lan t’ s a ppeal i s w it hout meri t. Al ong w it h hi s b ri ef, he has fil ed a copy of a l etter

se nt t o a p pel l a n tre g a rd i n g t h a tb r i e f. By l etter date d F ebr uar

y 25, 2009, thi s c our

t not ified ap pe l l an t of h i s r i g htt o fi l e hi s ow n res po ns e by Ma rc h 27 , 20 09 , i f he w i s he d to do s o. To date, no respon se has been recei v ed. In c ompli ance w it h thep r i n c i p les enunc iat ed i n Anders , app ell ate c ounse l dis cus sed two p o t e n t ia l a re a s fo r a p p e a l. On e i n vo lve s t h e t ri a l c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f a re qu e s tt o re m o ve a re fe re n c e t o t h e P a rd o n s a n d P a ro l e B o a rd f ro m t h e j u r y c h a rg e o n p u n i s h m e n t
. W e ag re e tha t s aid i ss ue does not involv e rev ersi ble er ro r. In th e oth er pot ent ial issue, appe llate counse l conte nds th e trial court did no t err in ref using to include a lesser-include d of fense instruction on crimina l trespass in the jury charg e dur ing the g uil t/i nnoce nce phase
. In ar ri v ing at that conc lus ion , c ounse l re li es sol ely on thi s c our

t’ s o pin ion i n Sal

azar v. Sta te, 259 S.W .3d 232 , 234 (Tex. App. –Am arillo 2008, pet. g ra nted ) in wh ich w e hel d tha t c ri minal trespas s was not a l ess er-i ncl uded offense of burg lar

y of a habi tati on becaus e the indictment in that cas e di d notal leg e tha t the d e fe n d a nt ha d not ic e tha t ent ry was forbi dden. H ow ev er , t he C our t of C ri minal 2 Appeal s h as g ra nted a pet it ion for d is creti onar y revi ew i n tha t c ase so the matter i s n ot re sol v ed. Mo re ov er , t he ques ti on at bar is w hether cr imi nal trespas s i s a l ess er-i ncl uded of fense of burglary of a b uilding a s o ppo sed to a hab itation . Th e Court of Cri min al App ealsAppel l ant was f ound bypol i ce i n t he bui l di ng b ut t ol d a pol i ce off i cert hat he wor k ed f ort hat busi ness 3 a n d w a s th e re to c o l l e c t m o n e yh e w a s o w e d
. 3 h e ld i n Day

v. Sta te, 5 32 S .W .2 d 30 2, 3 06 ( Tex
. C r i m. A pp . 19 75 ) , th att he n ot ice requireme nt w as satisf ied by referen ce to a b uilding not th en o pen to the pub lic becau se suc h a pla ce w as obv iou sl y desi g ned to ex cl ude an int ru der
. Al thoug h we not ed i n Sal azar that Day h a s b e e n o ve rr u le d b y Hal l v. State, 225 S.W .3d 524 (Tex
. Cr im. App. 2007) , t o the e xtent that itco nflicts w it h Hal l, w e al so noted in our opi nio n on re hear ing thatthe Penal Cod e defines a bui ldi ng as an encl osed str uct ure w hil e a h abi tati on i s n ot s o defined
. Sal azar v. Sta te, 259 S. W .3d a t 235
. Therefore, i t i s a t l eastarg uabl e in th is case th at c r i mi na l t res pa s s i s a le s s er- i nc l ud ed offens e of burg l ar y o f a bu i l di ng a nd t he re i s s om e ev ide nce that appel lan t i s g uil ty onl y of the l ess er

offense. 3 Accordin g ly , we g ra nt c ounse l’ s mot ion to w it hdraw and abate the a ppeal and re m a n d t o the 47 D is tr ict C our t of Potter

C ounty , Tex as. S e eS ta f f o r d v . S ta te, 813 th S.W .2d 5 03, 51 1 ( T e x. Cr im. App. 1991)
. Upo n remand, t he tr ial co urt s hal l appoi nt a different attor ney

to re presentappel lan t i n thi s appeal
. The tr ial co urt s hal l further order the n ew ly

appoi nted couns el to fil e an appel lan t’ s b ri ef, pursuantto the T e xas R u le s of Appel lat e Procedu re , dev elo pin g the aforementi oned arg uabl e g ro unds and all othe r g ro unds that mig ht s uppor t rev ersal or

modi ficat ion of the j udg ment. The deadl ine for fil ing the a ppel lan t’ s b ri ef w it h the cl er k o f this appel lat e c our t i s J une 30, 2009, unl ess abat ed by this cou rt. The reafter, an y respon ding brief

w hich t h e S t a te m ay care to su bm it shall be fil ed w it hin 30 d ays a fter t he fil ing of the a ppel lan t’ s b ri ef.4

Next, the t ri a l co urt s hal l caus e the name, address , and st ate b ar number of the newly app ointe d cou nsel to be included in a supp lem ent al transcript. Tha t transcript sha ll be fil ed by

the tr ial co urt w it h the cl er k o f this co urt on or before June 1, 20 09. It is so ordered.
Per C ur iam Do not p ubl is h.