### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03- 08 -00 147 -CR

Jo shua Ca le b Lowr y , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B LANCO COUNTY , 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 899 , HO NORAB LE DANIEL H. M ILLS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Ap pe lla nt Jos h u a C a l e b L o wr

y wa s in dic te d f

or tw o c ounts of

a g g ra vate d a ssa ult wi th
a de a dly we a po n. I n Se pte mbe r 20 06 , h e ple d guil ty and wa s p la c e d o n d e fe rr e d a dju dic a tio n w ith eig ht y ear s of communi ty

supervision. I n November 2007, the State moved to adjudicate appe llant’s g uil t, a lle g ingthat he ha d v iol a te d th e te rm s of his su pe rv isi on on Oc tob e r 27, 20 07 , b y dr ivi ngwh ile intox icated a

nd resisting arr est. At the hea ring on the State’s motion, appellant pled true to all of the State’s alleg ations in ex chang e for the State’s ag ree ment not to indict him for DWI
. The trial court adjudicate d him guilty

of the 2 0 0 6 as s au l t char g e and, a fter he aringtestimony related to the Oc tob e r 2 7 in c ide nt, a s w e ll a s tw o o the r e va din g arr e st c ha rg e s f ro m 20 04 and

20 05 , s e nte nc e d h im to fifteen year s’ imprisonment. Appellant’s appointed attorney has filed a

brief c oncluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit.

Counsel’s brief me ets the re quirements of An der s v. Ca li forni a , 3 8 6 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1967), by p re s en t i n g a professional eva luation of the re cord a nd demonstrating that there are noNo substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appe llant wish to seek furthe r re view of 1 his case by

the cour t o f cr i m i n al ap peals, he must either re tain an attorne y to file a pe tition for discretionar

y revie w or file a

pro se pe tition for discretionar y revie w. See ge nerally Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (g overningproce eding s in the Tex as C o u rt o f C riminal Appea ls). Any petition for dis c re tio na

ry re vie w mus t be fi le d w ith in t hir ty da y s f ro m th e date of

e ith e r t his op ini on

or the date this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehe aringfiled. See Tex. R. App. P
. 6 8.2. The petition must be filed w ith this Court, after wh i ch it will be forwa rded to the c ourt of cr iminal appea ls a long with the rest of the filings in the cause . See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discr etionary

revie w should comply

with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of

appellate proce dure. See Tex. R. App. P . 68.4, 68.5. 2 arguable g rounds to be adva nced. Se e Pe ns on v . O hio , 48 8 U. S. 75 , 8 0 ( 19 88 ); An de rs , 386 U.S. at 74 3- 44 ; Hi

gh v . S tate , 5 73 S.W. 2d

80 7, 81 1- 13 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 516 S.W .2d 68 4, 68 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 ); Ga ino us v . S tate , 436 S.W .2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Ap pe lla nt’ s atto rn e y

se nt app ell ant a

c op y of the br ie f a

nd a dv ise d h im that he ha d th e ri g ht t o
ex am ine the re cord a

nd file a pr o se brief

. Se e An de rs , 3 86 U. S. at 74 4; J ac k so n v . S tate , 485 S.W .2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se br ief ha s been f iled. We h a ve c on sid e re d th e re c or d a nd c ouns e l’ s b ri e f a

nd a g re e that th e a

pp e a l is frivolous and without merit. We have r eviewe d t h e evidence pr esente d to the jury and the pr oc e dure s th a t w e re ob se rv e d an d fin d noth ing in the re c or d th a t mi g ht a rgua bly su pp or t th e a pp e a l. We gr ant counse l’s motion to wit hdrawand af firm the judg ment of convic tion. 1

_______________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: August 27, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh