T ex. H ealth & Safety C ode Ann. § 481 .11 5(b) (Vernon Supp . 200 9). 1 NO. 07-09 -006 5-CR NO. 07-09 -006 6-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 C NO VEM BER17, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ LAURA LE I MEYERS, APPEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 32 0 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO S. 5 8,132- D & 58, 133- D; H ON ORABLE DO N EM ER SON , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Follow ing an ope n plea of g uilty to po ssession of a contro lled sub stan ce in cause 1 number 58,1 32- D, Appel lan t, Laura Lei M ey ers, w as conv icted b y the tr ial co urt andT ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 37. 09(a )(1) ( Verno n Sup p. 20 09). 2Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S. Ct. 139 6, 18 L.Ed .2d 493 (1967 ). 3 Notw it hst andi ng that Appel lan t w as infor med of he r ri g ht to file a pro s e pet it ion for 4 dis creti onar

y rev iew upon ex ecut ion of the Tr ial Cou rt ’ s Cer ti ficat ion of D efendan t’

s Righ t of A ppeal , coun sel mu st com ply w ith Rule 48 .4 of the T exas Rules of

Appe llate Proce dure w hic h prov ide s t hat c ounse l shal l w it hin fiv e days a fter t his opi nio n i s h anded d ow n, s end App ellanta copy of

the opin ion an d judgme nt to gether w ith no tif ication of her rig ht to f ile a pro s e pet it ion for d is creti onar y rev iew . In r

e Schul m an , at408 n.22 & at411 n.35. 2 sent enced to tw elv e months co nfinement. In caus e number 58,133- D, Appel lan t ent ered an open pl ea of g uil ty to tamper ing w it h phy si cal ev ide nce w it h i ntentto impai r and w as 2 sente n ce d to fiv e y ears c onfinement. The t ri al cour t ordered th e s entenc es to r un conc ur re ntl y . In pres enti ng thi s a ppeal , c ounse l has filed an Anders b r i e f i n s u p p o rto f a 3 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. In s uppor

t o f h e r moti on to w it hdraw , c ounse l cer ti fies she has condu cte d a cons ci enti ous ex amina ti o n o f t he record and, i n her opi nio n, t he record reflect s n o potent ial ly

pl ausi ble basis to suppo rtan a ppeal . Anders v. California , 386 U .S. 738, 744- 45, 8 7 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1 967) ; In r e Schul m an , 252 S.W .3d 4 03, 4 06 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 08). Coun sel cand idly discusse s w hy, unde r the con trolling autho rities, the a ppeal i s fr iv olo us. See Hi gh v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 807 , 813 (Tex.Crim.App . 197 8). C o u n s e l h a s d e mo n s t ra t e d t h a tsh e ha s co mp l i e d w i t h th e re q u i re me n t s o f Anders and In reSchul m an by ( 1) prov idi ng a c opy

of the br ief to Appel lan t, (2 ) noti fyi ng her of her ri g ht to fil e a p ro se respon se if she desi re d to do so, and (3 ) infor ming her of he r ri g ht to fil e a pro s e pet it ion for d is creti onar y rev iew . In r

e Schul m an , 252 S.W .3d at 408 . By letter, th is 43

Cou rtg ra n te d Appell ant t hir ty day s i n w hic h to ex erci se her r ig ht t o fil e a respon se to couns el’ s br ief, shoul d s he be so inc li ned. Id. at 40 9 n.2 3. Appel lan t did fil e a re spons e. H o w e v e r , t h e S t a t e d i d n o tfa v o r u s w i t h a b r i e f. On J uly 2, 2008, Off ic er

Ja cob Di az ini ti ated a traff ic sto p of A ppel lan t for ex pired re g is trati on. Appel lan t and t h e off ic er pul led i nto a par ki ng l ot. Officer D iazas ked Appel lan t t o ex it the v ehi cl e, is sued her a ci tati on, then infor med her sh e w as free t o l eav e. W hen sh e ope ned the do or to en ter her vehicle, he ob serv ed a w hite crystalline substa nce o n t h e ca rp e tb e twe e n t h e d o o r a n d d ri ve r’ s se a t . A c c o rd in g t o O f f ic e r D ia z’s t e s t im o n y, w hen he inq uired abou t the subs tanc e, Appel lan t admitted itw as methampheta mine and that she w as tr

y ing to dis pose of it. Dur ing the ple a hear ing , Ap pel lan t t est ified that she had recent ly us ed mar ihu ana and meth amphetami ne. Dur ing cross -e x aminat ion , s he admi tted to a pr ior mis demeanor and felon y

co nv icti on. She had been pla ced on c ommunity su per v is ion for t he felony conv icti on and w as lat er rev oked after ple adi ng tr ue to tw elv e v iol ati ons of the te rms and condi ti ons thereof. Appe ll ant req ues te d t h at t he tr ial co urt g ra nt he r eit her co mmunity su p e rvisio n or all o w h e r to en te r a re h a b ili ta ti o n pro gra m . At t h e co n clu sio n of th e he a rin g, the t ri al cour

t ann ounce d i ts deci si on to sen tenc e her to confine ment. The tr ial co urt w as con vinc e d Appell ant woul d notch ang e unl ess sh e w as “s eparated from the dope s cene enti re ly .”Before acc epti ng a g uil ty pl ea, a tr ial co urt has an a ff ir mati v e duty to admoni sh a 5 defend anton the “range of pun ishm ent ” attach ed to the of fense . Te x . Code Cri m. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13( a) (1 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 009) . “R ang e of puni shment ” does not i ncl ude communi ty

su per v is ion . Pr

ic e v . St ate , 866 S.W .2d 6 06, 610 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 3). Th us, a tr ial cour

t has no d uty

to admoni sh a defendant as to el ig ibi li ty for c ommunity

su per v is ion . Downs v. Sta te , 137 S.W .3d 8 37, 841 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1s t Di st. ] 2004, pet. re f’d) ( ci ti ng Ex Parte W

illia ms , 704 S.W .2d 7 73, 7 75 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1986) . Addi ti onal ly , t he tr ial cour t’ s deci si on to grant c ommunity su per v is ion i s d is creti onar

y and not rev iewabl e. Speth v. State , 6 S.W .3d 530 , 533 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 9). 4 At the beh est of

Appe llant, co unse l present s tw o arguable issues: (1) Appe llant’s ple a w as inv olu ntar

y and (2 ) the t ri al co u rterred i n deny ing Appel lan t’ s req uestfor prob ation . Counse l then conclud es tha t the record and legal autho rities do no t supp ort re v ersal of Appel lan t’ s c onv icti on on eit her i ss ue. 5 B y h e r p ro se re s p o n s e , A p p e ll a n tm a in t a in s h e r t ri a l a t t o rn e y re n d e re d in e f fe c t ive ass is tanc e of coun sel . After a rev iew of the re cord before us , w e c oncl ude t hat u nder the s t a n d a rd o f

re vie w p ro vid e d b y Str ickl and v . Washi ngton , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct . 205 2, 80 L .Ed .2d 674 (1984 ), Appe llant ha s not de mo n s t rated thather coun sel’s performa nce fell bel ow

an o bje cti v e s tandard. W e have inde pen den tly ex am ined the en tire record to de term ine w het her the re are any non- friv olo us is sues w hic h mi g ht s uppor t t he appe al. See Pen son v. Oh io , 488 U .S. 75, 109 S.C t. 346, 102 L.Ed. 2d 300 (1 988) ; In r e Schul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 409 ; Staff ord v. State , 81 3 S. W .2 d 50 3, 5 11 ( Tex .C r i m. Ap p. 1 99 1) . W e ha v e fou nd n o s uc h i s s ues. See G ain ous v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1969) . After re v iew ing the re cord, couns el’ s b ri ef, and Appell ant’ s pro se re spons e, w e agree w it h counsel that there are no5

pla usi ble g ro unds for appe al. See Bl e dso e v. Sta te , 178 S.W .3d 8 24 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 200 5). Acc ordin g ly , couns el' s motion to w it hdraw i s g ra nted and t he tr ial co urt’ s j udg ments are aff ir med. Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice Do not p ubl is h.