### NUM BER 13-08- 0032 1-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 CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
ERIC A LL EN GER LA ND , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee. On appeal fr om the 107th Dist ri ct Court of

Ca mero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es R o d rig u ez a n d G arza M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez On J anuar

y 27, 2007, appel lan t, Er icAl len Gerl and, w as indi cte d on one c ount of murde r, a first- deg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 19. 02(b )(1), ( 2) (Vernon 200 3). T he ind ictme nt alleged that Gerland (1) i nte ntion ally or know in gly cause d Cath y Jill Vander hee’ s d eath by

st ri ki ng her

head ag ain st a metal v ent or an u nknow n obj ect ; or

( 2)
w ith i n te n t to caus e s er iou s b odi ly i nju ry , c ommitt ed an actcl ear ly dang er ous to Van derh ee’ s life by

striking her hea d against a m eta l v ent or an unkn own object, which2

c a u s e d V a n d e rh e e ’s d e a t h

. G e rl a n d p le a d e d n o t gu il t y, a n d t h e c a s e wa s t ri e d t o a ju ry. The ju ry found Ger lan d g uil ty

and ass ess ed punis hment at f orty -fiv e y ear s’ co nfinement. The tr ial courtentered a judg ment of co nv ic ti on and sent enced Ger lan d ac cor din g to the jur y ’s v er dic t. Ger lan d’s co urt- appoi nted appel lat e c ounse l has filed an And ers b r i e f

. W e affi r m. I. A NDE RS B R I EF Pur suantto And ers v. Cali f ornia , 386 U.S. 738 , 744 (1967 ), Gerland ’s
cour t- appoi nted appel lat e counsel has fil ed a br ief w it h thi s C our t, sta ti ng thathi s r ev iew of the r ecor d y iel ded no g ro unds or er ro r u p o n whic h an appeal ca n be pr edi cat ed. Al thoug h c ounse l’ s b ri ef does n ot ad v ance any ar g uabl e g ro unds of err or , i t doe s p re sent a pr ofessi onal ev alu ati on of the re cor d demons tr ati ng w hy ther e ar e no ar g uabl e g ro unds to be adv anced on a ppeal

. See In r e Sc h ulm an , 25 2 S. W .3 d 40 3, 4 07 n .9 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2008) (“ In Tex as, an And ers bri ef need not speci fical ly adv ance ‘arg uabl e’ poi nts of
er ro r if co unsel finds none, but itmustpr o vide r e co rd referenc es to t he facts and p ro ce d u ra l h ist o ry an d se t o u t p e rt in e n t le gal au th o rit i e s
. ” ) (ci ti n g Hawk ins v. Sta te , 112 S.W .3d 3 40, 3 43- 44 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Ch ris ti 2003, no p et.) ); Staf for d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 5 03, 5 10 n. 3 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991)

. In c ompli ance w it h Hi

gh v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 807, 813 (Tex

. Cr im. App. [Panel Op. ] 197 8) , Gerland ’s counse l has caref ully discussed w hy, unde r controlling autho rity , the re
are no errors i n the tri a l c o u rt ’s judgmen t. Counse l has inf orme d this Court th at he has: (1 ) ex amined the re cor d and found no arg uabl e g ro unds to ad v ance on appe al, ( 2) se rv ed
a c opy of the br ief and couns el’ s mot ion to w it hdr aw on G er lan d, an d ( 3) i nformed G er lan dT he T exas Cour t of C r i m i nal Appeal s has hel d t hat “ t he p r o se r esponse nee d no t com pl y wi t h t he 1 rul es of a p p el l ate pro c ed ure i n o rde r t o b e c on s i de red

. R athe r, t he res po ns e s ho ul d i de nti fy for t he co urt t hose i ssues w hi ch t he i ndi gent app el l ant bel i ev es t he co ur t shou l d con si der i n de ci di ng whet her t he ca se pre s en t s an y m eri t ori ou s i s s ue s
. ” I n r e Schulm an , 252 S. W

. 3d 4 03, 409 n. 23 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 8) ( quot i ng W i l s o n v . S ta te , 95 5 S

. W

. 2d 69 3, 69 6-9 7 (T ex
. A pp
. –W ac o 1 99 7, no pe t

. ))

. 3 of hi s r i g ht to r ev i ew th e r ec or d an d to fi l e a pr o s e r es po ns e w i th i n th i rty days. See 1 And ers , 386 U .S. at 74 4; Sta fford , 813 S.W .2d a t 510 n.3; see als o In re Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 409 n.23. Ger lan d has f il ed a pr o se respo nse in w hic h he ar g ues that: ( 1) he
wa s su bje c tt o “m u lt ip li c it o u s p r o s e c u t io n ” b e c a u s e t h e ju ry wa s in s t ru c t e d o n t h e two theor ies of mur der cont ain ed in the s ing le counti ndi ctment ; ( 2) the ev ide nce is i nsuffici ent to sup port his con v ictio n ; a nd (3) he was af f orde d inef

f ective assistance of

trial counse l. See In r e Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 409

.

II. I NDEPE NDENT R EVI EW Upo n r ecei v ing an And ers br ief, w e mustco nducta full ex aminat ion of all the pr oceed ing s to deter mine w hether the cas e i s w hol ly

fri v olo us. Pen son v. Ohio , 488 U .S. 75, 80 (198 8). W e ha ve revi ewed the en tire record, cou nsel’s brief , Gerland ’s pro se respo nse, and the St ate ’s brief , and we have fo und noth ing that w ould arguably supp ort an appe al. See Bleds oe v. St ate , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826- 28 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2005) ( “D ue t o t h e n a t u r e o f And ers br iefs, by

i ndi cat ing i n the opi nion thati t c onsi der ed th e i ss ues raised in th e brief s and rev iew ed the r ecord for rev ersible error but f oun d no ne, the cou rt of appeal s metthe r eq uir ement of Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Pr ocedu re 47.1 .” ); Sta fford , 813 S.W .2d a t 509

. Acc or din g ly , w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. III
. M OT I ON TO W IT H D R AW In ac cor dance w it h And ers , Ger lan d’s attor ney has ask ed th is C our t for per mis si on to w it hdr aw

as co unsel for a ppel lan t. See Ande rs , 3 8 6 U

. S

. at 74 4; s e e also In re Schu lm an , 2 5 2 S .W .3 d at 40 8 n. 1 7 (cit in g Jef fer y v. State , 9 0 3 S

. W

. 2 d 7 7 6 , 7 7 9 -8 0 (T e x.N o sub st i t ut e cou nsel wi l l be appo i nt ed. Shoul d ap pel l ant wi sh t o see k f ur t her r ev i ew oft hi s case 2 by t he T ex as C ou rt of C ri m i na l A pp ea l s , he m us t ei t he r ret ai n an att orn ey t o f i l e a pe t i t i on for d i s c re ti o na ry r e v ie w o r f ile a p r o s e p e tit io n f o r d is c r e tio n a r y r e v ie w . A n y p e tit io n f o r d is c r e tio n a r y r e v ie w m u s t b e f ile d w ith in th ir ty d a ys f r o m th e d a te o fe ith e r th is o p in io n o r th e la s t t im e ly m o tio n f o r r e h e a r in g th a t w a s o v e r r u le d b y th is C o u rt. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 2. Any pet i t i on f or di scr et i onar y r ev i ew m ust be f i l ed wi t h t hi s C our t , af t er whi ch i t w i l l b e fo rw a rd e d to th e T e x a s C o u rt o f C rim i n a l A p p e a l s
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 3; 68. 7. Any pet i t i on f or d i s c re ti o n a ry re v i e w s h o u l d c o m p l y w i th th e re q u i r e m e n ts o f R u l e 6 8 .4 o f th e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a te P ro c e d u re
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 4. 4 App.–D all as 1995, no pet .) ( noti ng that“[i ]f an attor ney beli ev es the a ppeal i s fr iv olo us, he must w it hdr aw

from r epr esent ing the appel lan t. To w it hdr aw from r epr esent ati on, t he appoi nted a tt o rn e y mus t fil e a mot ion to w it hdr aw ac compani ed by

a br ief s how ing the app ellate court tha t the app eal is f riv olou s.”) ( citat io ns om itted )). W e grant coun sel’s moti on to w it hdr aw . W it hin f iv e day s of the date of this Cour

t’ s opini on, couns el is or der ed to sen d a cop y

of the op inion a nd jud gmen t to Gerlan d an d to ad v ise him o f his ri ght to f ile
a p e t it io n fo r d is c re t io n a ry r e vie w. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 8.4; see als o In re Sc hul m an , 252 2 S.W .3d a t 412 n.35 ; Ex par te O wens , 206 S.W .3d 670 , 673 (Te x . Crim. Ap p
. 200 6).

_________

_________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Do NotPubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.2( b) Del iv er ed and filed the 3 rd day

of Dec ember , 200 9.