NO. 07-08 -018 4-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D MA RC H 13, 2 009

_________

_________

_________

___ DONALD R. PEAS E, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 13 7 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 7- 415,574 ; H ON ORABLE CE CI L G. PU RY EAR , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON
Follow ing a plea of

not guilty , App ellant , Dona ld R. Pease , w as con v icted b y a jury of ag g ra v ated ro bber

y w it h an aff ir mati v e findi n g o n u se of a deadl y w eapon a ndAnd ers v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S. Ct. 139 6, 18 L.Ed .2d 493 (1967 ). 1 Notw it hst andi ng that Appel lan t w as infor med of hi s r ig ht t o fil e a p ro se peti ti on for 2 dis creti onar

y rev iew upon ex ecut ion of the Tr ial Cou rt ’ s Cer ti ficat ion of D efendan t’

s Righ t of A ppeal , coun sel mu st com ply w ith Rule 48 .4 of the T exas Rules of

Appe llate Proce dure w hic h prov ide s t hat c ounse l shal l w it hin fiv e day s a fter t his opi nio n i s h anded d ow n, s end App ellanta copy of

the op inion a nd jud gmen t togeth er w ith no tif ication of his righ t to f ile a pro s e pet it ion for d is creti onar y rev iew

. In r

e Schul m an , at408 fn.22 & at411 fn.35. 2 sent enced to tw enty -e ig ht y ears c onfinement. I n present ing thi s a ppeal , couns el has filed
an And ers br ief in suppo rt of a moti on to w it hdraw . W e g ra nt c ounse l’ s mot ion and affi r m.

1
In s uppor

t of hi s mot ion to w it hdra w, co unsel ce rt ifies he h as condu cte d a conscie nti ous ex aminat ion of the record and, i n hi s o pin ion , t he record reflect s n o potent ial ly

pl ausi ble bas is to suppo rtan a ppeal

. And ers v. California , 386 U .S. 738, 744- 45, 8 7 S. Ct . 139 6, 18 L.E d.2d 493 ( 1967) ; In r e Schul m an , 252 S.W .3d 4 03, 4 06 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2008)

. Cou nsel has ca ndi dly di sc uss ed w hy , und er the cont ro ll ing author it ies , t he appe al is f ri v olo us. See Hi gh v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 8 07, 8 13 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1978)

. Cou nsel has al so d e m o n st ra ted t hat h e has co mpli ed w it h the
re q u i re me n t s o f And ers and In r

e Schul m an by ( 1) prov idi ng a c opy

of the br ief to Appel lan t, (2 ) noti fyi ng him of hi s ri g ht to file a pro s e respon se if he d esi re d to do s o, an d (3 ) i n fo r mi n g h i m o f h i s r i g h t t o fi l e a p ro s e p e t i t i o n fo r d i s c re t i o n a r y re v iew

. In re Schulm an , 252 S.W .3d at 408

. By lette r, this Court g rante d App ellantthirty days i n w hich 2 to ex er ci se his r ig ht to fil e a respon se to c ounse l’ s b ri ef, shoul d he be s o i ncl ine d. Id. at n.23. Ap pel lan t did not file a re s p o n s e . N e i t h e r d i d t h e S t a t e fa v o r

u s w i t h a b r i e f.3 Pot ent ial Issu es By the And ers

brief , coun sel raises three pote ntial issue s, to-w it: (1) the evidence
w as legally

insuf f icient to supp ort App ellant ’s convi ction; (2) the evi den ce w as factu ally ins uff ic ien t t o s uppor

t Ap pel lan t’ s c onv ic ti on; a nd ( 3) the non- acc ompli ce ev ide nce w as ins uff ic ien t to corroborate the testi mony of Cli fford Johnson , Appell ant’ s co- act or . Coun sel then ex pla ins w hy

the is sues hav e no meri t.
W e ha v e inde pen den tly ex am ined the en tire record to de term ine w het her the re are any non- friv olo us is sues w hic h mi g ht s uppor t t he appe al. See Pen son v. Oh io , 488 U .S. 75, 109 S. Ct . 346 , 102 L.E d.2d 300 ( 1988) ; In r e Schul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 409 ; Staff ord
v. State , 813 S.W .2d 503 , 511 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 1). W e h a ve f o u n d no such issues. See G ain ous v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 1969 ). Af ter rev iew ing the record and coun sel’s brief , w e agree w ith cou nsel th at th ere are no plausib le groun ds for app eal. See Bledsoev. Sta te , 178 S.W .3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 5).
Acc ordin g ly , couns el' s moti on to w it hdraw i s g ra nted and t he tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment is aff ir med.
Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice
Do not p ubl is h.