See T EX

. H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN § 481. 115( a) , ( b) (V ern on 20 03 ). 1 

### NUM BER 13-07- 0048 5-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 C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G

CYN EA PER RY 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 6th D istrict Co urt of Sa n Patricio C ou nt y , 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 Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z Pur suant to a ple a ag re ement, appel lan t, Cy nea Per ry , pl eaded g uil ty to poss ess ion of a cont ro ll ed s ubst ance (c ocai ne)

. The tr ial cour t acc epted appel lan t’ s ple a, as ses sed 1 puni shment at one y ear co nfinement in a St ate J ail faci li ty and a $500 fine, s uspen ded t heS e e A n d e r s v . C a lifo r

n ia , 38 6 U

. S

. 73 8, 74 4 (19 67 ). 2
S e e id

. 3
S e e S ta ffo rd v . S ta te , 8 1 3 S .W .2 d 5 0 3 , 5 1 0 n .3 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) (e n b a n c ). 4
S e e H i

g h v . S ta te , 57 3 S

. W

. 2d 80 7, 81 3 (T ex

. C ri m

. A pp

. 19 78 ), 5
See I n r

e Schul m an , 2 5 2 S .W .3 d 4 0 3 , 4 0 8 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); S o w e l s v . S ta te , 45 S. W

. 3d 6 90, 6 6 9 3 (T e x . A p p .– W a c o 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t.). 2 confine ment por

ti on of the sent ence, and pla ced appel lan t on communi ty su per v is ion for a per iod of four y ear s. W it hin the per iod of c ommunit y super v is ion , the Stat e fil ed a moti on to r ev oke appel lan t’ s c ommunit y su per v is ion

. At a hear ing on t he State’ s mot ion , app ell ant plea ded “true” to each of the St ate ’s allegations tha t he violated th e con dition s of his

commu n it y superv is ion

. The tr ial co urt r ev oked appel lan t’ s c ommunit y su per v is ion and sent enced hi m to o ne y ear i n a S tate Jai l facil it y
. Appel lan t’ s c ounse l has filed a br ief w it h this Court asse rting there is no basis f or app eal. W e agree an d a f f ir m the trial court’s 2 jud g ment. An der s Br ief Coun sel’s brief

rev eals th at he has revi ewed t he clerk’s reco rd and reporte r’s r ecord in thi s c ase and has concl uded that appel lan t’ s appeal prese nts no is sues w hic h w ar ra nt

a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w
. T h e b r i e f m e e t s t he req uir e me n t s o f And ers as it present s a 3
pr ofessi onal ev alu ati on s how ing w hy ther e are n o arg uabl e g ro unds for adv anci ng an appeal

. I n c ompli ance w it h Hig h v. State , co unsel has ca re fully di sc uss ed w hy , und er 4 5 cont ro ll ing auth or it y , t her e ar e no err or s in the tri al cour t’ s judg ment. Appell ant’ s c ounse l infor med appel lan t of his ri g ht t o r ev iew the appel lat e r ecor d and to fil e a pr o s e b r i e f. 6See Schul m an , 252 S. W

. 3d at 409 ( ci t i ng J o h n s o n v . S ta te , 885 S. W

. 2d 6 41, 647 n. 3 ( T ex. 7 A p p .– W a c o 1 9 9 4 , p e t. re f’d ), m o d i fi e d b y W i l s o n v . S ta te , 95 5 S

. W

. 2d 69 3 (T ex

. A pp

. –W ac o 1 99 7, no pe t

. ))

. S e e E x p a r te In s a ll , 224 S. W

. 3d 213, 215 ( T ex. C r i m

. App. 200 7) ( Johnson , J. , di ssent i ng) ( not i ng 8 th a t o n a m o tio n to r e v o k e c o m m u n ity s u p e r v is io n , a tr ia l c o u r t is f r e e to r e j e c t a p u r p o r te d “ p le a - b a r g a in agr eem ent ” wi t h i m puni t y ) ( ci t i ng G u ti e rr e z v . S ta te , 10 8 S

. W

. 3d 30 4 (T ex

. C ri m

. A pp

. 20 03 ))

.

P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U .S . 7 5 , 8 0 (1 9 8 8 ); s e e G a rza v . S ta te , 126 S. W

. 3d 3 12, 313 ( T ex. 9 A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t.).

See Schul m an , 2 5 2 S. W

. 3 d a t 409 ; B l e d s o e v . S ta te , 178 S. W

. 3d 8 24, 826

- 27 ( T ex. C r i m

. App. 10 2 0 0 5 ).
See Bl edsoe , 1 7 8 S .W .3 d a t 8 2 7

.

11 3 Appel lan t s ubmit ted a pr o s e br ief to thi s C our

t. 7 In his pr o s e br ief, ap pel lan t al leg es that at his rev ocat ion heari ng , his counsel and the S ta te ha d r ea c he d a “ pl ea ba r g ai n” for a s i x - mo nt h s en te nc e, bu t th e tr i al court impos ed th e or ig ina l ple a- bar g ain ed one- y ear se ntenc e. The r ecor d r eflect s t hat a t t he

re v ocat ion hear ing , t he St ate r ecommended a s ix -mont h s entence

. How ev er , t he tr ial jud g e ask ed appel lan t if he under sto od that the cour t w as not re q uir ed to “go a lo n g w it h any ty pe of ag re ement,” and appel lan t r espon ded affirmat iv ely

. M or eov er , after the tr ial 8 court im pose d the one -y ear sen ten ce, th ere w as no object ion f rom a ppe llan t o r his

couns el. Upon rece iv ing a “f riv olou s a ppe al” b rief , the a ppe llate cou rts must cond uct “a f ull

e x a mi n a t i o n o f a l l t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e c a s e i s w h o l l y fr i v o lou s.” W e 9 have caref ully rev iew ed the appellat e record, counse l’s brief , and app ellant ’s pr o s e b r i e f. 10 W e agree w ith ap pellan t’s coun sel tha t the a ppe al is wi tho ut me rit. Accordin gly , w e af f irm 11 the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt. Mo ti on t o Wit hd raw In ac cor dance w it h And ers , couns el has ask ed per mis si on to w it hdr aw as co unselS ee A nd ers , 386 U

. S. at 744

. 12
Schul m an , 2 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 4 0 9 ; s ee S t aff ord , 8 1 3 S .W .2 d a t 5 1 1 (n o ti n g th a t A nd ers b r ie f s h o u ld 13 b e fi l e d w i th re q u e s t fo r w i th d ra w a l fro m c a s e ).

Schul m an , 252 S. W

. 3d a t 408 ; see Ex par t e W i l son , 956 S. W

. 2d 2 5, 27 ( T ex. C r i m

. App. 199 7) ( en 14 b a n c ) (p e r c u ria m ). 4 f or app ellant

. An app ellate cou rt m a y g ra n t coun sel’s mot ion to w ithdra w f iled in 12

conne cti on w it h an And ers b ri e f

. W e gra n t co u n s e l’ s m o t io n t o wit h d ra w.

13 W e or der

co unsel to adv is e appel lan t pr omptl y of the d isp osi ti on of thi s c ase and t h e a va il a b il it y o f

d is c re t io n a ry r e vie w. 14

LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, 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 t he 7t h day

of Aug ust , 200 8.