### NUM BER 13-08- 0007 1-CR NUM BER 13-08- 0007 5-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 DI NBURG

PHIL LIP BR OWN , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 4th D istrict Co urt of R efu gio C ou nt y , T exas . 

# MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s In 1998, Phi ll ip Br ow n w as ind ic ted for se x ual as saul t of a c hil d. T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 22.021 (V er non Su pp. 2008)

. He ple aded g uil ty and w as pla ced on tw o y ear s o fT he St at e ha d f i l ed p r ev i ous m ot i ons t o ad j udi c at e gu i l t and pet i t i ons f or r ev ocat i on o fpr obat ed 1 sent ence, whi ch r esul t ed i n t he a ddi t i on o fcond i t i ons t o ap pel l ant ’ s com m uni t y supe r v i si on. 2 deferr ed adj udi cat ion co mmunity su per v is ion

. The term of co mmunity su per v is ion w as
ex tended for an addi ti onal eig ht y ear s, in li eu of an ad jud ic ati on of g uil t bas ed upon a ne w ind ic tment for pos ses si on of a c ontr oll ed s ubst ance. In 1999, Brow n w as indi cte d f or posses si on of

a c ontr oll ed s ubst ance. T EX
. H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . § 481.115 (d ) ( Ver non 2003)

. He pl eaded g uil ty and w as plac ed on deferr ed adj udi cat ion co mmunity su per v is ion for t en y ear s. In A ug ust2007, the Stat e of Tex as filed a moti on to r ev oke communi ty su per v is ion for fail ur e to compl y

w it h the ter ms of su per v is ion for e ach off ense. A hear ing w as hel d, 1 and t he tr ial co urt found t hat B ro w n had v iol ated his c o m m u n it y su per v is ion and adj udi cat ed hi m g uil ty on b oth o ff enses
. Af ter the sent enci ng hear ing , Brow n w as sent enced to tw enty

y ear s’ i mpri sonmenti n the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce for each count , to ru n conc ur re ntl y
. Br ow n’s appel lat e couns el, conc lud ing t hat "t her e ar e no
ar g uabl e g ro unds to be adv anced on appeal ," f il ed an And ers br ief i n w hic h he re v iew ed th e me r i ts , or

l ac kt he r eo f, of t he a pp ea l

. W e affi r m. I
. D I S CUS S I ON A
. Compliance w ith An der s v. Cal if or ni a Pur suantto And ers v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 744 (1967 ), appe llant’s
cour t- appoi nted appel lat e c ounse l has filed 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 gro unds or er ro r upon w hic 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 , it does pr esentT 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 2 rul es of ap pe l 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 re s p on s e s ho ul d i de nti fy for t he co urt t hose i ssues whi ch t he i ndi gent app el l ant bel i ev es t he co ur t shou l d consi 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 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 hul m an , 252 S. W .3 d 40 3, 4 07 n .9 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2008) ( “I n Tex as, an And ers br ief need not s peci fical ly adv ance ‘arg uabl e’ poi nts of
er ro r if c o u n s e l fi n d s n o n e , b u t i t mu s t p r o v i d e r e c o r d r e fe r e n c e s t o t h e fa c t s a nd pr ocedu ra l his tor

y and setout perti n e nt l eg al author it ies .” ) (c it ing Hawki ns v. State , 112 S.W .3d 3 40, 3 4 3 -4 4 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is 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 8 07, 8 13 ( Tex . Cr im. App. [Pane l Op.] 197 8), app ellant 's co unse l h as caref ully discussed w hy, unde r controlling autho rity , the re
are no errors i n the trial court's judgmen t. Co u n s e l h a s inf orme d this Court th at he has: (1 ) ex amined the re cor d and found no ar g uabl e g ro unds to ad v ance on appe al, ( 2) se rv ed
a c opy of the b rief and c ounse l’ s mot ion to w it hdr aw on a ppel lan t, and ( 3) i nformed app ellant of his rig ht to rev iew the record and to f ile a pro se r espo nse wi thin th irty days. 2 See Ande rs , 386 U .S. at 74 4; Staff ord , 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

. Mo re than an a deq uate per iod of time has pas sed, and appel lan t has not fil ed a pr o s e r espon se. Se e In re 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 de ter mine w hether the cas e i s w hol ly

fri v olo us. Pen son v. Oh io , 488 U .S.N o sub st i t ut e counsel wi l l be appoi nt ed. Shoul d appel l ant wi sh t o seek f ur t her r ev i ew of t hi s case 3 by t he T ex as C ou rt of C ri m i na l A p p e a l s , he m us t ei t he r r etai n a n a t t orn ey t o fi l e a pe t i t i on for di s c ret i on ary 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
4 75, 8 0 ( 1988)

. W e hav e r ev iew ed th e ent ir e record and c ounse l' s b ri ef and hav e found not hing t hat would arguab ly supp ort an a ppe al. See Bledsoe v. Sta te , 178 S.W .3d 8 24, 8 2 6
- 2 8 ( Te x
. C r i m. A p p
. 2005) (“ D u e 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 nio n tha t i t c onsi der ed th e i ss ues r a ise d i n the br iefs and r ev iew ed th e r ecor d for
rev ersible error b ut f oun d non e, the co urt of a ppe als me t the requirem ent o f T exas Rule of A ppel lat e Pro ce d u 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 ments 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 , app ell ant’ s a ttor ney has as ked thi s C our

t for per mis si on to w it hdr aw as couns el for appel lan t. S e e A n d e rs , 386 U .S. at 74 4; see also In re Schu lm an , 252 S.W .3d a t 408 n.17 ( ci ti ng Jeffer y v . St ate , 9 0 3 S

. W

. 2 d 7 7 6 , 7 7 9 -8 0 (T e x. App.–D all as 1995, no pet.) (n oti ng that “[ i] f an attor ney bel iev es the appeal 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 re pr esent ati on, t he appoi nted attor ney

mustfil e a mot ion to with d ra w a ccompani ed by a br ief s how ing the appel lat e court that the appeal is f ri v olo us” ) ( ci tati ons omit ted) ). W e gr ant couns el’ s mot ion to w it hdr aw
. W it hin f iv e day s of the date of thi s C our

t’ s o pin ion , c ounse l is or der ed to se nd a cop y of the op inion a nd jud gmen t to ap pellan t and to advise app ellant of 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. 48.4; see als o In re Sc hul m an , 252 3d 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 re 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.
5 S.W .3d a t 412 n.35 ; Ex par te O wens , 206 S.W .3d 6 70, 6 73 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

.

_________

_________

________ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 2nd day

of Jul y , 200 9.