NO. 07-06 -024 5-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 SEPTEM BER6, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ ST EVIE PREST ON DEAN, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO . 52, 792- E; H ON ORABLE ABE LOPEZ , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Stev ie Prest on D ean, w as conv icted bya jur y of ev adi ng ar re st by

us ing a v ehicle. Hav ing been previ ously conv icted o f t he o f fense of ev adin g arrest, th e of

fense w as a thi rd deg re e felony
. See T ex. Pen al Code Ann
. § 38. 04(b )(2)(A) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3). Appel lan t pl ed tr ue to the enhanc ement pa ra g ra phs and pun is hment was ass ess ed attenAnders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S. Ct. 139 6, 18 L.Ed .2d 493 (1967 ). 1 2 y ears c onfinement and a $10,000 fine. In prese n ti n g t his appeal , c ounse l has filed an Anders b r i ef i n s up po rt of a mo ti on t o w i th draw . W e g ran t c ou ns el ’ s mo ti on a nd a ffir m.

1 In suppo rt of hi s moti on to w it hdraw , c ounse l cer ti fies he has di li g entl y

rev iewed th e re cord and, in his opi nio n, the re cord re flect s no re v ersi ble er ro r upon w hic h an appe al can be predi cat ed. Anders v. California , 386 U .S. 738, 744- 45, 8 7 S. Ct . 139 6, 18 L.E d.2d 493 (1 967) ; Mo nr

oe v . St ate , 671 S.W .2d 583 , 5 85 (T ex.App. --San An ton io 198 4, no pet. ). Thus, he concl udes the a ppeal i s fr iv olo us. C ounse l has candi dly di sc uss ed w hy , und er the cont ro ll ing author it ies , there is no er ro r in the c our t' s j udg ment. 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 show n tha t he senta c opy of the b ri ef to Appe ll ant a nd i nformed Ap pel lan t t hat, in couns el' s v iew , t he appe al is w it hout meri t. In addi ti on, c ounse l has demonst ra ted t hat h e not if ied Appel lan t of hi s r ig ht t o rev iew the reco rd and f ile a pro se respo nse if he desired to do so. T he Clerk of this Court als o adv is ed App ell ant b y l etter of his r ig ht to f il e a re spons e to couns el’ s b ri ef. Appel 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. On F ebr uar

y 8, 2006, a t a p p rox imat ely 4:00 a.m., Officer

Sc ott Cha pel w as ass ig ned t o w atc h c ertai n hous es for pos si ble narcot ic s and prost it uti on act iv ity . He w as acc ompani ed by

Officer Kev in Brow n, w ho w as in train ing
. Both off ic ers t est ified that the y obser v ed a v ehi cl e dr iv en by

Appel lan t lea v e the area w it hout tur nin g on the headl ig hts of his ca r. Chapel and Brow n w ere in a mark ed pat ro l car thatni g ht an d foll ow ed App ell ant3

to i nit iat e a s top for

dr iv ing w it hout his headl ig hts bei ng on at nig ht. SeeTex . Transp. C ode Ann . § 547 .30 2(a)(1) (Vernon 199 9). Of f icer Chape l testif ied tha t w hen h e activated the o v erhe ad lig hts of h is p atrol car, Appel lan t acc ele ra ted. Appel lan t fled and di sreg arded s ev eral traff icsi g ns and al so made num erou s turns. Of

f ic e r Ch a pel also activ ate d the spot light and siren of his patrol car. Appel lan t ev entual ly

ca me to a s top, ex it ed hi s c ar w it h hi s hands up, a nd w as coope ra ti v e. By the And ersb ri ef, couns el present s four arg uabl e g ro unds, to-w it : ( 1) the tr ial cour t er re d i n deny ing Appel lan t’ s req uest to repl ace his co urt- appoi nted attor ney ; ( 2) the ev ide nce w as leg all y

and factual ly

insuffici ent to suppor

t Ap pel lan t’ s c onv icti on; ( 3) the tr ial cour t er re d i n admi tti ng hearsay ev ide nce ov er

Appel lan t’ s o bje cti on; and ( 4) tr ial co unsel re ndered i neffect iv e as si sta nce. C ounse l then re v iews w hy no rev ersi ble er ro r is present ed by the se arguable g roun ds. An ind igent defend antdoe s not ha v e the rig ht to choo se his ow n ap poin ted coun sel. Un le s s h e wa ive s h is ri gh tt o c o u n s e l a n d e le c t s t o p ro c e e d p ro se , o r o t h e rwi s e sh o ws ade quate rea son for the a ppo in t m e n tof new coun sel, he is not ent itled to discharge his co u n se l b ut mus t ac ceptthe couns el appoi nted by the tr ial co urt. Thom as v. State , 5 50 S.W .2d 6 4, 68 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1977)
. Addi ti onal ly , ade q uate re ason for th e di sc harg e of couns el and app oin tment of new co unsel rest s w it hin the sound di sc re ti on of the tr ial co urt. Car ro ll v. Sta te , 1 7 6 S
. W. 3 d 2 4 9 , 2 5 5 ( T e x . A p p . – H o u s t o n [ 1 s tD i s t
. ] 2 0 0 4 , p e t
. re f ’ d )
. W e ag re e w it h c ounse l that no rev ersi ble er ro r is present ed.4

Ev ide nce is l eg all y

i nsuffici ent i f, w hen v iewed i n a lightm o stf av orabl e to the prose cution , a rat io n a l trier of fact cou ld nothave fo und each elem entof the of fense bey ond a re asona ble doubt
. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 318, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed.2d 560, 573 ( 1979) ; M c K in n e y v . S ta te , 20 7 S
. W
. 3d 366 , 37 4 ( T ex. Cr i m . Ap p. 2 0 0 6 ). W hen c onducti n g a fact ual su ff ic ien cy rev iew , w e ex amine all the ev ide nce in a neutral li g ht an d deter mine w hether the j ur y w as ra ti onal ly

j ust ified i n findi ng g uil t beyond a reason abl e doubt
. Zuni ga v . St ate , 144 S.W .3d 477 , 4 8 4 (T ex.Cr im.A pp. 200 4), over ruled i n par t by W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 4 15- 17 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006)
. The ev ide nce present ed prov ed that Appell ant int enti onal ly f led f ro m a pers on he knew to be a peace off ic er

w ho w as attempt ing to law fully ar re st or detai n him, and that he used a v ehi cl e w hil e i n fli g ht. F urther more, the ev ide n ce p re se n ted estab li shed that he had prev iou sl y been conv icted of t he offense of ev adi ng ar re st o r de te n ti o n. See § 3 8 .0 4 (b )( 2) (A ). See Calton v . St ate , 1 7 6 S
. W
. 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 4 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 5 )
. W e agree w ith cou nsel’s evaluatio n tha t the ev iden ce is suf f icient to s u p p o rtAppe llant’s conv icti on. Dur ing Officer

Brow n’s tes ti mony , he w as a sked w hy he a nd C hapel w ere i n the neig hb or ho od an d he res po nd ed th ey ha d nu me rou s s ou rc es of i nfo r ma ti on , to w hich defense c ounse l obj ect ed on the g ro unds of he arsay . The obj ect ion w as ov er ru led
. The sta ndard of rev iew

for a tr ial cour

t’ s ev ide nti ar

y r uli ng i s a buse of dis creti on. Sau ceda v.5

State , 129 S.W .3d 1 16, 1 20 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)
. W e ag re e w it h c ounse l that no re vers ib le erro r is p re se n te d by th e tri a l co u rt ’s ru lin g. A c lai m of ineffecti v eness i s re view ed unde r the s tandard s et ou t i n Strickland v. W ashi ngton , 466 U .S. 668, 104 S. Ct . 205 2, 80 L.E d.2d 674 (1 984)
. Appel lat e re v iew of trial co unse l’s repre sent ation is highly deferen tial and presum es tha t coun sel’s cond uct fell w it hin the w ide rang e of reason abl e a n d professi onal represent ati on. See Andrew s v. State , 159 S.W .3d 98, 101 ( T ex.Cr .Ap p. 20 05). T rial counse l condu cted ef fective crosse x a m i n a t i o n o f

t h e S t a t e ’ s w i t n e s s e s a n d a l s o l o d g e d o bj e c t i o n s t o t h e i r t e s t i m o n y . We ag re e w it h c ounse l that the re cord before us does not demonst ra te t hat A ppel lan t was deni ed effectiv e represent ati on. W e ha v e inde pen den tly ex am ined the en tire re cord to d ete rmine w het her the re are any non- friv olo us g ro unds w hic h mi g ht s uppor t t he appe al. See Pen son v. Oh io , 488 U .S. 75, 1 09 S. Ct . 346 , 102 L.E d.2d 300 ( 1988) ; S ta f f o r d v . State , 8 1 3 S. W .2d 5 03, 5 11 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1991)
. W e hav e found no suc h g ro unds. After rev iew ing the re cord and couns el’ s b ri ef, w e ag re e w it h couns el that the a ppeal i s fr iv olo us. See Bledsoev. Sta te , 178 S.W .3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 5).In g ra nti ng c ounse l’ s mot ion to w it hdraw , howev er , w e remind couns el of the 2 “edu cation al” duty to inform Appe llant of this Court’s decision and of his rig ht to f ile a pro se peti ti on for

disc re ti onar

y rev iew i n the C our

t of C ri minal Appea ls
. Ex par te O wens , 206 S.W .3d 670 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 6). 6 Acc ordin g ly , c ounse l' s mot ion to w it hdraw i s g ra nted and the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment is aff ir med. 2

Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice Do not p ubl is h.