NO. 0 7 - 0 9 - 0 0 9 3 - CR NO. 0 7 - 0 9 - 0 0 9 4 - CR I N TH E CO UR T O F AP PE ALS FO R THE SEVENTH DI STRI CT OF TEXAS

AT AMAR I LLO PA NE L C DE CE MBE R 8, 20 09

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ BENJ AMI N DON BENSON, APPEL L ANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPEL L EE

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ F R O M T H E 181S T DIS T R ICT CO U R T O F RA N D A LL CO U N T Y; N OS . 1 9 , 1 8 9 - B & 1 9 , 1 9 0 - B ; H ON OR A B L E J OH N B OA R D , J U D GE

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ _ Before QU I NN , C. J. , an d HANC O CK an d PI RT LE, JJ . M E M ORA N D U M OP I N I ON Fol l ow i ng tw o s epa r at e p l eas o fn ot g ui l t y , Appe l l ant , Benj am i n Don Bens on, w as con v i ct ed bya ju ryi n c aus e n um bers 1 9, 189 - B and 19 , 190 - B of agg r av at ed sex ual as sau l tof a c hil d, enh an ce d, and se nte nc ed to se ven ty y ea rs a nd sixtyyears co nf inem en t, res pe ctively. The t r i al co urtordered t he sen ten ce i n c aus e n um ber 19 , 190 - B t o r un con sec ut i v e t o t heA n de rsv. C a lifo rn ia , 386 U .S. 738, 87 S.C t. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 1 Not w i t h s t a n d i n g t h a tA p p e l l a n tw a s i n fo r m e d o f h i s r i g h tt o f i l e a p ro s e p e t i t i o n for 2 di scret i ona ry re vi ew upon ex ecu t i on of t he Trial Cour t ’ s Cer tif icat ion of Def endant ’ s Ri ght of Appea l , co uns el m ustco m pl yw i t h Rul e 4 8. 4 o f t he Tex as Rul es of Appel l at e Proce dure w hi ch prov i des t hatco uns el sha l l w i t hi n fi v e day s aft er t hi s opi ni on i s han ded do w n, se nd Appel l ant a c opyof t he op i ni on an d ju dgm enttog et her w i t h n ot i fi cat i on of h i s r i ghtt o fi l e a pro s e p et i t i on for di screti onaryrevi ew . In r e Sch ul man , at40 8 n . 22 & at41 1 n . 35.



### 2 sen t enc e i n 19, 189 - B. I n prese nt i ng t hi s a ppe al , co uns el ha s fi l ed an A nders bri ef i n support 1 o f a mo t i o n t o w i t h d r a w . W e g r a n tc o u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n a n d a ff i r m. I n s upp ortof her

m oti on to w i t hdraw , co uns el ce rt i fi es she ha s c ond uct ed a c o n s c ien tio u s ex a m ina tio n ofth e r e c o rd an d , in he r o p inio n , th e re c o rd re f lec ts no po te n tia lly pl ausibl e basi s to support an appeal . A n de rsv. C a lifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U. S. 7 3 8 , 7 4 4 - 4 5 , 8 7 S.C t. 1396, 18 L .Ed.2d 493 (1967); In r e Sch ul man , 252 S .W .3d 403, 406 (Tex.Cri m .App. 2008). C ounsel candidl y di scus ses w hy, und er the c ontrol l i ng a uthori ti es, the appeal i s fri vol ous. See Hi gh v. State , 573 S.W . 2d 80 7, 813 ( Tex . Cri m . App. 1978 ) . Couns el ha s d em ons t r at ed t hatsh e h a s co m p l i e d w i t h t h e re q u i r e m e n t s o f A ndersan d In r e Sch ul man by ( 1) prov i di ng a c opyof t he br i ef t o Appel l ant , (2) not i fy i ng hi m of hi s ri ghtto fi l e a pro se r esp ons e i f he d esi r ed t o d o so, and ( 3) i nform i ng hi m of hi s ri ght t o fi l e a p ro se peti ti on for di screti onaryrevi ew . In r e Schul man , 252 S .W .3d at408. B y l etter , thi s Co urt granted Appell ant t hi rty days i n w hi ch to 2 exerci se hi s ri ght t o fil e a response t o couns el ’ s bri ef, shoul d he be so i ncl i ned. Id. at40 9 n . 23. Appel l ant di d n otfi l e a re s p o n s e . T h e S ta te re s p o n d e d bylet te r o f its in te n t n o t to f ile a re p ly br i ef u nl ess Appe l l antfi l ed a p ro s e resp ons e. By t he Ander

s br i ef, co uns el rai ses fi v e a rgua bl e i ssu es . Counse l qu est i ons w het her t he Sta t e e nga ged i n p rose cut or i al m i sco ndu ctby( 1) us i ng Juror Buec ker

t o b ol st er

### 3

u n c h a llen g e d te s tim o n y re g a rd ing th e cr e d ibility o f th e vict im ’s te s tim o n y re g a rd ing de layin r epo rt i ng t he abu se and ( 2) byfai l i ng t o i nst r uctw i t nes ses t o a v oi d a nyreferenc e t o e x t r ane ous off enses . By i ssue three, couns el cha llen g e s t he effecti veness of tr i al counsel i n fai l i ng to obj ectt o c ert ai n m at t ers. Couns el ’ s fourt h argua bl e i ssu e r ai ses abu se of d i scret i on byt he t r i al cou rti n o v er r ul i ng Appel l ant ’ s o bj ect i on t o t est i m onyof Lou i se W ade conce r ni ng t he sex ual a s s a u lt e xa m . B y th e f ifth an d f ina l ar g u a b le is s u e , c o u n s e l alle g e s a b u s e o fd is c re tio n in cum ul at i on of App el l ant ’ s s ent enc es. Counse l the n cand i dl yrev i ew s each arg uab l e i ssu e a nd ex pl ai ns w hyno rev ersi bl e e r ror i s p r ese nt ed. W e ha ve reviewed co unsel ’ s a rgum ents a nd w e h av e i nde pe nd en tlyexam ined the en tire re c o rd to de te rm ine whe th e r th e re ar e a n y n o n -f rivo lou s is s u e s wh ic h m igh t s u p p o rt th e ap p e a l. See P e n s o n v. O h io , 488 U .S. 75, 109 S .Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 ( 1988); In r e Sch ul man , 25 2 S.W . 3d at40 9; Staffor d v. State , 813 S.W . 2d 503 , 511 ( Tex . Cri m . App. 199 1) . W e h av e fo und no such i ssues . S ee G ai nous v. State , 43 6 S. W . 2d 137 ( Tex . Cri m . App. 19 69) . After rev i ew i ng t he r eco rd a nd cou nse l ’ s b r i ef, w e a gree w i t h c oun sel t hatthe r e ar e no pl aus i bl e g roun ds for appeal. See B ledsoe v. State , 178 S .W .3d 824 ( T ex. C ri m .App. 2005). A ccordi ngl y, counsel' s m oti on to w i thdrawi s granted and the t ri al court ’ s judgm ents are aff i rm ed. P a tr ic kA . P irtle Jus t i ce Do no tpu bl i sh.