NO. 07-05 -035 6-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 C MA RC H 29, 2 007

_________

_________

_________

___ BOBB Y LADEL L DORSEY, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 31 DIS T RI CT COU RTOF G RAY COUN TY; ST NO . 669 6; H ON ORABLE STEVEN R . EM ME RT, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t was pla ced on deferred adj udi cat ion for a per iod of 10 y ears a fter e nter ing a pl ea of g uil ty , pursua n t to a plea barg ain , t o the offense of deli v er y of a c ontroll ed subst ance in a d rug f ree z one , enh ance d by on e prior co nviction. Th e Sta te sub sequen tly filed a mot ion to proceed w it h adjudi cat ion alle g ing that appel lan t c ommitt ed four v iol ati ons of his community

super v is ion
. The tr ial courtconduct ed a hear ing and found that appel lan t had v iol ated all four of t he ter ms and co ndi ti ons of community su per v is ion as al leg ed and, after re cei v ing ev ide nce re g ardin g puni shment, a ss ess ed appe ll ant’ s p uni shmentatAppel lan t hasfil ed fiv e moti ons for extens ion of ti me to file a r e sp o nse to t he 1 And ers brief . Th e f irst fo ur mo tions were g rante d and the f inal mo tion was denied on July 19, 2 006. 2 conf inem entin the In stitutio nal Div ision of t he T exas Departm entof Cri min al Justice for a pe r i od o f 10 y ea rs a nd o rde red a fi ne o f $2 ,5 00
. W e affi r m. A p p e ll a n t ’s a tt o rn e y h a s f il e d a n A n d e rs b ri e f a n d a m o t io n t o wit h d ra w. An d e rs v. Cal ifor nia , 386 U .S. 738, 87 S. Ct . 139 6, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1 967)
. In s uppor t of hi s mot ion to w it hdraw , c ounse l cer ti fies that he hasdi li g entl y rev iewed th e record, an d i n hi s o pin ion , the record reflect s n o rev ersi ble er ro r upon w hic h an appeal ca n be predi cat ed. Id. at 74 4- 45. In compl ian ce w it h Hi g h v . Stat e, 57 3 S. W .2d 8 07, 8 13 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1978) , c ounse l has candi dly

di sc uss ed w hy , und er

the cont ro ll ing auth or it ies , t here is no er ro r in the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment. Addi ti onal ly , c ounse l has cer ti fied th at he has prov ide d appell ant a co py of the And ers b ri ef and moti on to w it hdraw and appropr iat ely

adv is ed appe ll ant o f his r ig ht to fil e a pro serespon se in thi s matter
. Stafford v . St ate, 813 S .W .2 d 5 0 3, 51 0 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1991)
. Th e c o u rthas al so adv is ed appe ll ant o f his r ig ht t o fil e a pro se re spons e. Appel lan t hasnot filed a respon se.

1 By his And ers brief , coun sel raises groun ds tha t could possib ly supp ort an a ppe al, b u t co ncl udes the a ppeal i s fr ivolo us. W e hav e rev iewed th ese g ro unds and made an inde pen d e n tr eview

of the en tire record to de term ine w het her the re are any arg uab le g ro unds w hic h mig ht s uppor t an appeal
. See P enson v . O hio , 488 U .S. 75, 1 09 S. Ct . 346 , 1 0 2 L
. E d
. 2 d 3 0 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; B l e d s o e v . S t a t e , 1 7 8 S
. W. 3 d 8 2 4 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 )
. W e have foun d no such arguab le groun ds and agree w ith cou nsel th at th e ap pea l is f rivolou s.3

Acc ordi ng l y , c ou ns el ’ s mo ti on t o w i th draw i s h ereb y

g ran te d an d th e tr i al c ou rt’s jud g ment i s a ff ir med. Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not p ubl is h.