### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00220- CR

Michael Anthony Cardiel, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 264 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 638 63, H ONO RAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

I n 2009, appellant Michae l Anth ony Cardiel pled nolo contende re to robber y under a plea ag ree ment and was place d on defe rre d adjudication for five y ear s. I n 2011, the State filed a motion

to adjudicate Cardiel’s g uilt, alleg ing n u m er o u s violations of his defe rre d-adjudica tion conditions, including possession of a handg un and ma r ih u ana, failure to repor

t to his community supervision office r

or complete his community -ser vice hours, and failure to pay his fines an d court costs. Cardiel pled 1
“n o t t ru e” to the alleg ations, and following a hear ing at which sever al police office rs and Cardie l ’s

The gun and marihuana wer e found in Cardiel’s car during an inventory sear ch after the 1 police stopped Cardiel based on a repor t that the car was stolen. I t appea rs from the rec ord that the car was not stolen afte r all, and it is unclea r how the car came to be repor ted stolen, but office rs who wer e involved in the stop testified that they had information that the car was stolen when they made the stop, and the fa ct that the re port was appar ently mistaken does not re nder the stop or Cardiel’s arr est invalid. See Brown v. State , 986 S.W .2d 50, 53 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1999, no pet.) (“it is well established an arr est is not inval i d m er el y beca use an office r relies on rea sonably trustworthy information which late r prove s to be err oneous”)

.community supervision office r testified, the trial court fou n d the alleg ations to be true, adjudicate d

his g uilt, and se ntence d him to six y ear s imprisonment. Cardiel’s appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the appe al is frivolous and without merit.

Counsel’s brief me ets the re quirements of Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1967), by prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord and demonst rating that there are

no arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders , 386 U.S. at 743-44; High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) ; Currie v. State , 516 S.W .2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 197 4 ); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Cardiel’s attorney

sent appe llant a copy

of the brie f and a dvised him that he had the rig ht to examine the rec ord and file a pro se brief. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Jack son v. State , 485 S.W .2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se br ief ha s been f iled. Having revie wed the evidenc e prese nted at the adjudication hear ing and the proce dures that wer e observe d at the hear ing and the ear lier plea proce eding , we find n o t h i n g i n the rec ord that might arg uably support the appea l. We ag ree wi t h counsel that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. We g rant c ounsel’s motion to withdraw and a ffirm the judg ment of convic tion. 2

No substitut e counsel will be appointed. Should Cardiel wish to seek further revie w of his 2 case by the court of criminal appea ls, he must either retai n an at t o rn ey to file a petition for discretionar

y revie w or file a pro se petit ion for discretionary revie w. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (g overning proce eding s in c ourt of criminal appea ls). A petition for discretionar y revie w must be filed within thirty day s from the date of this opinion or the date this Court overr ules the last timely motion for rehe aring

. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The petition must be filed with this Court, afte r which it will be forwa rded to the court of criminal appea ls along with the rest of the filings in the cause
. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discretionar y 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__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose and Goodwin
Affir med Filed: June 7, 2012 Do Not Publish

3