NO. 07-08 -012 2-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 B FEB RU ARY12, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ T ONY PEREZ, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 64 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF HA L E CO UNT Y; NO . A1 7465- 0712; HO NO RA BLE R OBER T W . KI NK AID , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t Tony

Perezappeal s from his conv ic ti on of t he offense of t heft of prop erty and t he resultin g s e n te n ce of tw o y ears c onfinement in a s tate jai l facil ity of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. Appel lan t' s attor ney has filed a br ief i n c ompli ance w it h And ers v. C ali for nia , 386 U. S. 7 38, 8 7 S. Ct . 139 6, 18 L.E d.2 d 4 93 ( 1967) and In re Schulm an, 252 S.W .3d 403 (Tex.Crim. App . 200 8). Agreein g w ith ap poin ted coun sel’s conc lus ion the re cord fails to show any arg uabl y

mer it or iou s i ss ue th at c oul d s uppor t t he appeal , w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.See Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 31.03( e) (4 ) (V er non 200 7)

. 1 2 In D ecember

2007, appel lan t w as indi cte d for the offense of theft of pro per ty i n the amount o f more t han $1, 500 and l ess than $20, 000. O n appel lan t’ s n ot g uil ty pl ea, t he 1 matter w as tr ied to a j ur

y in Febr uar

y 2008. The Stat e’s ev ide nce show ed sto len proper ty
w as found in the back

of appell ant’ s pic kup in Oc tober 2007. Ap pel lan t, w ho w as then a passe nger, gav e of

f icers conf licting stories about the prop erty. App ellanttestif ied attrial. He di d no t de ny k no w i ng th e prop er ty w as s to l en bu t c on te nd ed he di d no t s te al i t. He a rgued he w as manipu lat ed by hi s fr ien d, w ho w as dr iv ing the pic kup w hen t he proper ty
w as found. App e llant al so tes ti fied to i nju ri es sus tai ned i n an acc ide nt t hat l eft him w it h brain damag e. Appell ant fur ther arg ued t he ev ide nce did not demonst ra te be y ond a re asona ble doubtthe proper ty had a fair

mar ketv alu e of more than $1500.
T he co urt’s charge instructe d the jury on th e law of parties, a nd p ermitt ed th e jury to find appel lan t notg uil ty , g uil ty a s in d icted or

g uil ty of the l ess er

offense of theft of proper ty of a v alu e of $5 00 or more but les s than $1500. The jur y found appel lan t g uil ty as cha rg ed in the in dictm ent , and a ssessed the sen ten ce w e ha v e no ted . Appe llant tim ely f iled no tice of

app eal.
Thereafter , app ell ant' s a ppoi nted appel lat e c ounse l has filed a mot ion to w it hdraw and a br ief i n s uppor

t pursuantto And ers in w hich he ce rtif ies tha t he ha s dilig ent ly re v iew ed th e record and, i n hi s p ro fessi onal opi nio n, under the cont ro ll ing auth or it ies and facts of this ca se, there i s n o rev ersi ble er ro r or leg it imat e g ro unds on w hic h a non- friv olo us app eal arguab ly

can be predicat ed. T he brief d iscusses the proced ural history of th e case3

and app ell ant’ s j ur

y tr ial

. Cou nsel di sc uss es the a ppl ic abl e law and set s forth the reason s he c oncl udes the record present s n o arg uabl y mer it or iou s a ppel lat e i ss ues. C ounse l has ce rt if ie d that a c opy

of the And ers b r i e f a n d mo t i o n t o w i t h d ra w h a v e b e e n s e r v e d on app ellant , and thatcoun sel has a dvised app ellantof his ri ght to rev iew

the reco rd and f ile a pro se respon se. Johns on v . St ate , 885 S.W .2d 6 41, 6 45 ( Tex .App. –W aco 1994, pet. ref 'd). By

letter, th is C o urt also no tif ied ap pellan t of his oppo rtunity to subm it a respon se to t he And ers

br ief and moti on to w it hdraw fil ed by his co u nsel

. Appel lan t has not filed a re spons e. In con formity w ith the stand ards set o ut by the United State s Supre me Court, w e w ill not r u le on th e moti on to w it hdraw unti l w e hav e i ndependen tl y ex amined the re cord. Nichol s v . St ate , 954 S.W .2d 83 , 8 6 (Te x .Ap p.– San Anto nio 19 97, no pe t.). If this Court deter mines the appeal has mer it , w e w il l re mand i t t o the tr ial co urt for appoi ntment of new couns el. See S taff

or d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 503 , 511 (Tex.Crim.App .19 91).
In hi s b ri ef, couns el notes thathe h as cons ide re d w hether the ev ide nce present ed at t ri al w as leg all y

and factual ly

su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t app ell ant’ s c onv ic ti on fo r th e ft of proper ty i n a n a m o u n t m o re than $1,5 00 and les s t han $20 ,000. C ounse l set s for th a detai led reci tati on of the tes ti mony and ev ide nce at t ri al. I n maki ng a de ter minat ion of leg al suffici ency , w e mustdec ide i f, a fte r re v iew ing the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the v erdict, a ration al trier of fact could have foun d the essen tial elem ent s o f t h e o f f ense beyond a reason able dou bt. In det ermin ing fa ctua l suf f iciency, w e v iew

all of the evidence in a neutra l li g ht and only set asid e the verdict if iti s s o c ontrar y to the o v er

w hel ming w eig ht of the ev ide nce as to be cl ear ly w ro ng and unj ust

. After a compl ete re v iew of the record,C ounse l shal l, w it hin f iv e day s after the opini on is handed dow n, s end hi s c li ent a 2 copy of the o pin ion and jud g ment, alo ng w it h not ific ati on of the defendant’ s r ig ht t o fil e a pr o s e peti ti on for dis creti onar y rev iew

. See Tex . R . Ap p. P . 48. 4.

4 w e ag re e w it h appell ate c ounse l that the g ro unds ide nti fied do not a rg uabl y su ppor t an app eal. Se e Jack

son v. Vi rgini a, 443 U.S. 307 , 319 , 99 S. Ct. 278 1, 61 L.Ed .2d 560 (1979 ); Mc Ki nney v. State, 207 S.W .3d 366, 374 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2006) (setti ng forth standa rd for
r e v i e w o f l e g a l s u ffi c i e n c y

o f t h e e v i d e n ce) ; W

a ts o n v. Sta te , 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 4 14- 15 (Tex .C ri m.App . 2 006) ; Ma rs hal l v. State , 210 S.W .3d 618 , 625 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 6); Johns on v

. St ate, 23 S .W .3d 1 , 6- 7 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2000) ( factual su ff ic ien cy ).
Our rev iew co nv inc es us that appel lat e c ounse l condu cte d a compl ete re v iew of the re cord. W e hav e al so made an indep endent ex aminat ion of the e nti re record to deter mine
w h eth er there are any arg uab le groun ds w hich m ight suppo rt the ap pea l. W e agree it present s n o arg uabl y

mer it or iou s g ro unds for re v iew

. Ac cordin g ly , w e g ra nt c ounse l' s mot ion to w it hdraw and aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

2

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.5