### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 09 -0 00 27 -C R

______________________________ GARY WAYNE L AWRENCE, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 294th J udicial District Court

Van Z andt County , Texas Trial Court No. CR06-00138

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor and

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr issOrig inally appea led to the Twelfth Court of A ppeals, this case was tra

nsfer red to this Court 1 by the Texas Supreme Court pursua nt to its docket e qualization efforts. See T EX . G OV ' T C ODE ANN . § 73.001 (Ve rnon 2005). We a re unawa re of any conflict betwee n prec edent of the Twe lfth Court of Appe als and that of this Court on any rele vant issue. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 41.3. L awr ence also appe als, in companion ca use n u mb e r 0 6
- 0 9
- 0 0 0 2 6
- CR , a ls o d e c id e d this date, 2 from the a djudication of his guilt of the offe nse of bur g lary of a ha bitation. L awr ence was sente nced by the trial cour

t to twenty

y ear s' imprisonment and a fine of $2,500.00. The se ntence s are to run concur rently
. 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Gar y Way ne L awr ence ap p ea l s fr o m t h e r ev o ca t i o no f h i s co m m u n i t y s u p er v i s i o n , o nh i s plea of " true" to the State' s alleg ations contained in its motion to revoke, for the under ly ing of

fense of criminal mischief in a

place of worship. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 28.03(f) (Ve rnon Supp. 1 20 08 ). L awr e nc e wa s se nte nc e d b y the tr ia l c ourt

to t we lve mon ths ' c on fi ne me nt i n a s ta te ja il fac ility and a fine of $500.00. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 12.35 (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). L awr ence 2
was re prese nted by

differ ent, appointed, c ounsel at trial and on a ppeal. L awr e nc e ' s atto rn e y

ha s f ile d a br ie f whic h d isc us se s th e re c or d a nd re vie ws the pr oc e e din g s. Counsel has thus pr ovided a profe ssional e valuation of the rec ord demonstrating why , in effe ct, there
are no arguable g rounds to be advanc ed. This me ets the re quirements of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U. S. 7 38 (1 96 7) ; Sta

ffo rd v . S tat e , 813 S.W .2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); and Hi gh v . S tat e , 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [ Panel Op.] 1978). Couns e l ma ile d a

c op y of the br ie f t o L a

wr e nc e Ap ri l 22 , 2 00 9, inf or min g L awr e nc e of

his ri g ht t o e xami ne the e nti re a pp e llate re c or d an d to file a pr o se re sp on se . Coun se l si mul tane ou slySince we ag ree this c ase prese nts no reve rsible err or, we also, in a ccor dance with An de rs , 3 g rant c ounsel' s reque st to withdraw from f urther r epre sentation of L awr ence in this case. No substitut e counse l will be appointed. Should L awr ence wish to seek fur ther re view of this ca se by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, L awr ence must either re tain an attorney to file a pe tition for discretionar

y revie w or file a

pro se petition for discretionary revie w. Any petition for discre tionary revie w must be filed withi n thirty day s from the date of e ither this opinion or the last timely motion for re he ari ngthat w a s o ve rr ule d b y thi s Co ur

t. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 6 8
. 2
. A n y p e ti ti o nf

or discretionar

y revie w must be filed with this Court, after w hich it will be forwa rded to t h e Te x as Court of C riminal Appea ls along with the rest of the filings in this case
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.3. Any petition f

or discretionar

y revie w should c omply with the require ments of Rule 68.4 of the Te x as Rules of Appellate Procedur e. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.4. 3 filed a motion with this C ourt seekingto w ithdraw as counsel in this appea l. L awr ence has neither filed a pr o se re sponse, nor re quested a n extension of tim e in which to file suc h a re sponse. We have de termined that this appea l is wholly frivolous. We have inde pendently revie wed the c le rk ' s r e c or d a

nd the re po rt e r' s r e c or d, and we a g re e that no argua

ble iss ue s su

pp or t an a pp e a l. S e e B l e d s o e v . S t ate , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). I n a fr ivolous appeal situat i o n , we ar e t o deter mine whether

the appe al is without merit and is frivolous, and if so, the appea l must be dismi ssed or a ffirme d. Se e An de rs , 386 U.S. 738. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt . 3

J o s h R
. M o r

r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: J uly 2, 2009 Date D ecide d: J uly 3, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh