NO. 07-05 -031 3-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JU NE 5, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ RONALD EUGENE PA RKER, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 25 1 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; ST NO . 50, 279- C; H ON ORABLE PATRI CK A. PIR TLE, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON After re v iew ing appel lan t ’s peti ti on for dis creti onar y rev iew , w e w it hdraw

our opi nio n of Febr uar

y 22, 2007 an d s ubst it ute t his opi nio n i n i ts pla ce. See Tex . R . Ap p. P . 50. Appel lan t R onal d Eug ene Pa rk er a ppeal s h is co nv icti on for the fel ony offense of aggravated a ssault. W e agree w ith ap poin ted coun sel’s conclusio n tha t the record fails to show any me ritorious issue w hich would supp ort the app eal and af f irm the trial court’s jud g ment.2

A p p e ll a n twa s in d ic t e d fo r a ggr a va t e d a s s a u ltb y t h re a t e n in g i m m in e n tb o d il y in ju ry, usi ng or ex hib it ing a de a d ly weapon. The i ndi ctmental so cont ain ed enha ncement para graph s alleging tw o prior felon y convictions. He pled not guilty and w as tried be fore a j ur y w hic h found hi m g uil ty as al leg ed i n the i ndi ctment
. Appel lan t pled n o t tr ue to the enhanc ement al leg ati ons. The j ur y found both enhanc ement p arag ra phs tr ue and ass ess ed puni shmentat 35 y ears c onf in e m e n t in the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. N oti ce of appeal w as ti mely fil ed. Appel lan t' s c ounse l has filed a moti on to w it hdraw and a br ief i n s uppor

t pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1 967) , in w hic h he re present s h e has se arched the record and in his professi onal opi nio n, un der the cont ro ll ing auth or it ie s a n d f a cts of thi s c ase, there i s n o rev ersi ble er ro r or l eg it imat e g ro unds for appe al. Couns el has infor med appel lan t by l etter of his r ig ht t o rev iew

the tr ial re cord and to fil e a p ro se respon se. Johns on v . St ate , 885 S.W .2d 6 41, 6 45 (Te x .Ap p.–W aco 1 9 9 4 , p e t
. r e f ’d). By letter this cou rt also not if ied ap pellan t of his oppor tuni ty to submi t a re spons e to the Anders brief and m otion to w ithdra w f iled by his couns el. Ap pel lan t has fil ed a re spons e present ing three pot enti al is sues . In con formity w ith the stan dard s set out by the United Sta tes Suprem e Court, we w ill not r ule on t he moti on to w it hdraw unti l w e ha v e i ndependen tl y ex amined the re cord. Nichol s v . St ate , 954 S.W .2d 83, 86 (T e x .Ap p.– San Anto nio 19 97, no pe t.). If this court deter mines the appeal has mer it , w e w il l re mand it to the tri al cour t for appoi ntment of new couns el. See S taff

or d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 5 03, 5 11 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1991)
.Al len v. U nit ed St ates , 164 U.S. 492 , 501 , 17 S. Ct. 154 , 41 L. Ed. 528 (1896 ). 1 3 Cou nsel ’s br ief di sc uss es tw o pot enti al is sues . The firs t c oncer ns the s uppl emental or Al len charge provided to the jury w hen the jury forem an indicate d the juror s were 1 deadl ock ed on puni shment
. Cou nsel note s t he record does not aff ir mati v ely sh ow the suppl emental charg e w as rea d in open courtor appell ant’ s ex press w aiv er of suc h readi ng as r e qu ir e d by articl e 36 .27 of the Cod e of

Cri min al Proced ure. (Vern on 2 006 ). H e conc lud es any

defect i n pres entat ion of the suppl emental charg e w as w aiv ed w hen i t w as not b ro ug ht t o the tr ial co urt’ s a ttent ion , citi ng Sm it h v . St ate , 513 S.W .2d 8 23, 8 29 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1974) , and H udsonv. Sta te , 128 S.W .3d 3 67, 3 82 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 2004, no pet .)
. See also W ing field v. Sta te , 197 S. W .3d 9 22, 9 26 ( Tex .App. –Da ll as 2006, no p et.) (com pliance w ith article 36 .27 presum ed a bs e n ta showi ng to the co ntrary)
. Cou nsel ’s br ief also address es w hether appel lan t w as deni ed th e effect iv e as si sta nce of coun sel, con cluding und er the governing aut horit y h e wa s n ot. Our revi ew of coun sel’s br ief and the record c onv inc es us that appel lat e c ounse l condu cte d a t horoug h rev iew of the record. T he f irst issue raised in app ellant ’s response alleges t h e e viden ce w as legally ins uff ic ien t t o es tabl is h he used or ex hib it ed a deadl y w eapon. Appel lan t doe s n ot de ny the adm ission of

ev iden ce he ex hibite d a “silv er or chrome -plate d . . . hand gun.” He all eg es the a bsenc e of ev ide nce that the h andg u n wa s a d e a dly w eapon renders t he evidence leg ally insuf

f icient. Penal Code section 46.0 1(5) def ines ha ndgun as a f irearmSee Le e v . St ate , 866 S.W .2d 298, 300 ( T e x.A pp.- -F ort W orth 19 93, p et. re f’d) 2 (recog niz ing defini ti ons setout in secti on 46.01 appl y onl y to chapt er

46 o ffenses , butca n be us ed as an a id in deter mini ng w hether a pa rt ic ula r w eapon i s a deadl y w eapon)
. Appell ant conc edes the compl ain t w as not present ed to the tr ial co urt and rev ersal 3 is req uired onl y

i f the e rror

resul ted i n eg re g iou s h ar m. See A lm anza v . St ate , 686 S.W .2d 157, 171 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1984)
. 4 designed to be f ired w ith one h and
. T ex. Pen. Cod e Ann . § 46. 01(5 ) ( Verno n 20 03). A 2 fire ar m is a de adl y

w eapon p er

se . Ex par

te Husk ins , 176 S.W .3d 818, 820 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2005)
. The ju ry

w as ins tr uct ed th at a f ire a rm i s a deadl y w eapon. See Tex . Pe n. C ode Ann. § 1. 07( a) (1 7) (A ) (V er non 200 3)
. Appel lan t next q uest ion s t he fact ual suff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce he us ed a deadl y w eapo n. He re li es on ev ide nce one w it ness di d notse e appel lan t w it h a w eapon a nd pol ic e off ic ers d id not fin d a g un i n the area. This i s n ot an obje ctiv e ba sis on w hich w e could say the great w eight and prep ond eran ce of the ev iden ce cont ra dicts the j ur

y 's v erdict. See Watson v. State , 204 S.W .3d 404, 417 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006) ( re ci ti ng st andard for deter mini ng factual i nsuffici ency ). T h e t h ird is sue in appel lan t’ s respon se ass ig ns er ro r to t he tr ial co urt’ s fai lure to charge the jury

on the def inition o f

a f irearm con taine d in Pen al Code section 46.0 1(3). 3 T he def inition of

f irearm cont aine d in section 46.0 1(3) app lies only to of fense s def ined in Cha pter 46. Gar ri son v. State , 726 S.W .2d 1 34, 1 38- 39 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1987) ; Tex . Pe n. Code Ann. § 46.0 1 (Verno n 20 03). T h e o f fe n se of agg rav ate d assa ult is def ined in Cha pter 22 o f the P enal C ode. Tex . Pe n. C ode An n. § 22.02 (V er non 200 3)
. The tr ial cour t di d noter r in it s fai lure to inc lud e the se cti on 46. 01( 3) defini ti on of firear m in the ag g ra v ated ass aul t c harg e. Gar ri son , 726 S.W .2d at 13 8. Appel lan t’ s respon se does not show any mer it or iou s i ss ue on w hic h an appeal ca n be predi cat ed.5

W e hav e al so made an ind ependentex aminat ion of the enti re record to deter mine w hether there are any

arg uabl e g ro unds w hic h mi g ht s uppor t t he appe al. See Sta f f ord , 813 S.W .2d at 511. W e ag re e it present s no meri tor iou s g ro unds for re v iew
. W e grant couns el’ s mot ion to w it hdraw , and aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Do not p ubl is h.