NO. 07-06 -013 2-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D APR IL 24 , 200 7

_________

_________

_________

___ T IMOT HY

B. MIERS, APP ELL ANT V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 0 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 2- 439062; H ON ORABLE JIM BOB D AR NE LL, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON
Pursuantto a pl ea barg ain ag re ement, on Aug ust20, 2002, Appel lan t, Timothy B. Mi ers, ple aded g uil ty

and w as conv icted of dr iv ing w hil e int ox ic ated, enhanc ed by two pr iorThe repor ter ’s record filed on Jul y 12, 2006, w as suppl emented on N ov ember 20, 1 200 6, to include a tra n s c ri p tion o f the guilty

plea he aring held in 200 2. How ever, v olun tarine ss of

a plea f rom a p lea bargaine d felon y conviction is not rev iew able on ap pea l. See C ooper

v. Sta te , 45 S. W .3d 77 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 01). Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S. Ct. 139 6, 18 L.Ed .2d 493 (1967 ). 2 2 conv icti ons for th e s ame offense. Pu nis hment w as ass ess ed at fiv e y ears c onfinement, 1 suspe nde d in favor of five y ears comm unity supe rv ision. T he State f iled its Fi rs t Am ended Motion to Revoke alle g ing numerous v iol ati ons of the te rms and condi ti ons of community super v is ion , t o w hic h Appell ant plead ed not true. At a h ear ing on t he St ate’ s mot ion , t he tr ial co urt heard tes ti mony f ro m Appel lan t’ s communi ty super v is ion off ic er

thatsu ppor

ted the S tate’ s a ll eg ati ons. Ap pel lan t tes ti fied in his defense; nev erthel ess , the tr ial co urt found tha t App ellant failed to (1) com plete a court-ord ered program, (2) mainta in tota l abstine nce f rom co nsum ption of

alcoho lic bev erages, an d (3) r e p o rta s required. Appe llant’s communi ty

su per v is ion w as re v oked and he w as sent enced to four y ears confine ment. In present ing thi s a ppeal , c ounse l has filed an Anders br ie f i n s u p por

t of a mot ion to 2
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 of hi s mot ion to w it hdraw , couns el cer ti fies he has dil ig entl y

rev iewed th e re cord and, in his opi nio n, t he record reflect s n o rev ersi ble er ro r upon w hic h an appeal ca n be predi cat ed. Anders v. California , 386 U .S. 738, 744- 45, 8 7 S. Ct . 139 6, 18 L.E d.2d 493 (1 967) ; Mo nr

oe v . St ate , 671 S.W .2d 583 , 585 (Tex.App .--San An ton io 198 4, no pet. ). Thus, he c oncl udes the a ppeal i s fr ivolo us. Couns el has candi dly di sc uss ed w hy , und er the controll ing authori ti es, there is no er ro r in the c our t' s j udg ment. See Hi

gh v. State , 573This C our t’ s c or re spond ence w as re tur ned. Ac cord ing to the Texas Dep artment 3 of Cri min al Justice, A ppe llant w as release d on Janu ary4, 200 7. Add itiona lly , App ellant ’s couns el has no forwardin g address for A ppel lan t. 3 S.W .2d 8 07, 8 13 ( Tex .C r. App. 1978)

. Cou nsel has al so show n tha t he senta c opy of the br ief to Appel lan t and i nformed Ap pel lan t t hat, in couns el' s v iew, th e appeal i s w it hout meri t. In addi ti on, c ounse l h as demonst ra ted t hat h e not ified Appel lan t of hi s r ig ht t o re v iew the re cord and file a pro se respon se if he de sired to do so. Th e Clerk of this Court als o adv is ed App ell ant b y l etter of his rig ht to f il e a re spons e to couns el’ s b ri ef. The Stat e 3 d i d n o tfa v o r

u s w i t h a b r i e f.
Coun sel presen ts tw o arguable g roun ds for app eal, to-w it: (1) w het her the trial court abuse d i ts dis creti on i n rev oki ng co mmunity su per v is ion , and ( 2) w hether tr ial couns el w as ine ffect iv e dur ing the puni shment phase by not present ing su ff ic ien t mi ti g ati on ev ide nce. Cou nsel ack now led g es that the tes ti mony from Appel lan t’ s c ommunity su per v is ion off ic er suppo rt s re voc ati on. See Moor e v . St ate , 605 S.W .2d 9 24, 9 26 ( Tex .C r. App. 1980) (h old ing that proof of one v iol ati on of the condi ti ons of community su per v is ion i s s uff ic ien t to suppo rt re v ocat ion ). Ad dit ion all y , c ounse l re cog niz es that a di re ct appeal i s u sual ly an ina deq uate v ehi cl e for ra is ing a c lai m of ineffecti v e as si sta nce of c ounse l. See G oodsp eed
v. State , 187 S.W .3d 3 90, 3 92 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2005)

. Tri al counse l shoul d ordin ar il y be afforded an oppor

tuni ty to ex pla in his act ion s before bei ng denounced as i neffect iv e. Ry lan der v. Sta te , 101 S.W .3d 107 , 111 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 3).4

W e ha v e inde pen den tly ex am ined the en tire record to de term ine w het her the re are any non- frivolo us g ro unds 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 30 0 (19 8 8 ); Staf for d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 5 03, 5 11 (Tex .C r. App. 1991)

. W e hav e found no suc h g ro u n d s. After re v iew ing the re cord and
couns el’ s b ri ef, w e ag re e tha t t he appe al is fri v olo us. See Bledsoev. St ate , 178 S.W .3d 824 (Tex.Cr.App. 200 5).
Acc ordin g ly , c ounse l' s mot ion to w it hdraw is g ra nted and t he tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment is aff ir med.
Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice
Do not p ubl is h.