T he under l y i ng off enses i n bot h cause num ber s per t ai n t o r obber i es at t wo di ff er ent conv eni ence 1 st or es on or abo ut t he n i ght of Janu ar y 11, 2004

. However , beca use a ppel l ant ’ s coun sel has f i l ed A nd ers br i ef s i n bo t h ap pel l at e cau s e nu m ber s 13- 09- 417- C R and 13- 09- 418- C R , and beca use t he a nal y si s i s t he 

### NUM BERS 13-0 9-00 417- CR

13-09- 0041 8-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
RA ND Y GU ERR

A , A pp ellan t,

v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 11 7t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es Y añ ez a n d V el a Memoran du m Op inio n by C hie f J us tice Vald ez Appel lan t, Ran dy Guer ra , w as charg ed by ind ic tment w it h one c ount of ag g ra v ated
ro bber y , a firs t- deg re e felony , i n bot h appel lat e c ause numbers 1 3- 09- 417- CRand 13- 09- 41 8- C R. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 29. 03( a) (2 ) (V er non 200 3)

. Pursuantto a pl ea

1sam e, we i ssue o ne o pi ni on a ddr essi ng b ot h ap pel l at e cau se nu m ber s. T h e p u n is h m e n ts im p o s e d in b o th a p p e lla te c a u s e n u m b e r s w e r e o r d e r e d to r u n c o n c u r r e n tly. 2 “ T AI P” i s i den t i fi ed o n t he T exas Depar t m ent of C r i m i nal Just i ce websi t e as t he “ T r eat m ent 3 A l t ern ati ve t o I nc arc era t i on P rog ram (C J A D ). ” See T ex. D ep’ t of C r i m i nal Just i ce: D ef i ni t i ons & Acr ony m s, h ttp :// w w w .td c j.s ta te .tx .u s /d e fin i ti o n s /d e fin i ti o n s -a c ro n y m s .h tm (l a s t vi s i te d F e b . 2 , 2 0 1 0 ).

I n i t s fou rt h m oti on to revo k e, t he S t ate al l eg ed , am on g o t he r t hi ng s , t ha t G ue rr a vi ol ated t he t erm s 4 a n d c o n d i ti o n s o f h i s c o m m u n i ty s u p e rv i s i o n b y e n g a g i n g i n fa m i l y vio l e n c e a s s a u l t. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 2 2 .0 1 (b )( 2 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 9 ); T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 7 1 .0 0 3 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 8 ). 2 agreem ent w ith the State , Gue rra plead ed g uilty to the und erly ing charge. The trial court found Guer ra g uil ty

of the u nder ly ing off enses i n bot h appel lat e cause numbers, ass ess ed
a s entenc e of ten y ears’ co nfinement, s u sp e n d ed th e s entenc e, pl aced Guer ra on com mu nity supe rv ision for ten years, and impo sed a f ine of $50 0 an d cou rt costs. 2 On May 3 , 2005, t he St ate fil ed i ts firs t moti on to r ev oke Guer ra ’s co mmunity super v isi o n , all eg ing that

Guer ra had v iol ated sev er al condi ti ons of his co mmunity super v is ion by unl awfully

ca rr y ing a w eapon, poss ess ing mar ihua n a , a n d fail ing to pay court-ord ered f ines an d fees. At a hea ring on th e Sta te’s f irst motio n to revo ke, Gu erra plea ded “true” to the allegation s cont aine d in the State ’s motio n to revoke; the trial court subse quently sanction ed Gu erra, place d him on the “special caselo ad for substa nce a buse probati on p ro gr am,” and order ed hi m to p arti ci pate in TAIP ev alu ati ons and at tend 3 subs tanc e abus e c las ses . The re after, the Stat e fil ed th re e mor e moti ons to rev oke,
ass erti ng thatGuer ra had v iol ated sev er al other co ndi ti ons of his co mmunity su per v is ion , inc lud ing se v er al ins tan ces of improper co nsumpt ion of alc ohol

. W it h respec t t o the
sec ond and thi rd moti ons to rev oke, the tr ial co urt furt her sancti oned Guer ra ; how ev er , t he tr ial co u rt r e voked G uer ra ’s co mmunity su per v is ion after

Guer ra pl eaded “ tr ue” to the all eg ati ons cont ain ed i n the Sta te’ s four th mot ion to re v oke that w as filed on M ay 15, 2009. After

r ev oki ng Guer ra ’s co mmunity su per v is ion , t he tri al cour

t reduce d the 43

sus pended ten- y ear

se ntenc es to ei g ht y ears’ co nfinement in the I nst it uti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce w it h no fine and, onc e ag ain , order ed th e sent ences i mposed in both appel lat e c ause numbers t o r un c oncur re ntl y . Guer ra ’s appel lat e c ounse l, co ncl udi ng that there ar e “n o meri tor iou s is sues to br ing forw ard for re v iew ,” fil ed A n d ers br iefs in both appel lat e c ause numbers, in w hic h he
r ev i ew ed t he me r i ts , or l ac kt he r eo f, of t he a pp ea l s . W e affi r m.

I. A NDE RS B R I EF Pursuantto And ers v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 ( 196 7 ), G u e rra’s
cour t- appoi nted appel lat e c ounse l has filed br iefs w it h thi s C our t, sta ti ng thathi s rev iew of the record y iel ded no g ro unds or er ro r upon w hic h an appeal ca n be pr edi cat ed i n ei ther appel lat e caus e number

. Al thoug h c ounse l’ s b ri efs do no t adv ance any arg uabl e g ro unds of error, they do present a prof ession al evaluation of the reco rd dem onst rating w hy the re are n o a rg uabl e g ro unds to be adv anced i n ei ther appeal

. See In r

e Schul m an , 252 S.W .3d 4 03, 4 07 n. 9 (T e x . C ri m. App. 2008) ( “I n Tex as, an And ers br ief need not spec ifica lly a d van ce ‘arg uabl e’ poi nts of er ro r if co unsel finds none, but itmustprov ide
re cord referenc es to t he facts and procedu ra l hist o ry and setout per

ti nent leg al author it ies .” ) (c it ing Hawki ns v. State , 112 S.W .3d 340, 34 3- 44 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no pet .) ); Staf

for d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 5 03, 5 10 n. 3 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991)

. In c ompli ance w it h Hi

gh v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 8 07, 8 13 ( Tex . Cr im. App. [Pane l Op.] 197 8), Gue rra's coun sel has caref ully discusse d w hy, unde r controlling autho rity , the re are no er ro rs i n the tr ial cour t' s jud g ments. Cou nsel has infor med thi s Cou rt that he has : (1 )
ex am in e d the re cord and found no arg uabl e g ro unds to ad v ance in eit her appeal , ( 2)
ser v ed c opi es of the bri efs and couns el’ s motion s to w it hdr aw on Guer ra , and ( 3) i nformedT he T exas Cour t of C r i m i nal Appeal s has hel d t hat “ t he p r o se r esponse nee d no t com pl y w i t h t he 5 rul es of ap pe l l ate pro c ed ure i n o rde r t o b e c on s i de red

. R athe r, t he res po ns e s ho ul d i de nti fy for t he co urt t hose i ssues whi ch t he i ndi gent app el l ant bel i ev es t he co ur t shou l d con si der i n de ci di ng whet her t he ca se pre s en t s an y m eri t ori ou s i s s ue s . ” I n r e Schulm an , 252 S. W

. 3d 4 03, 409 n. 23 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 8) ( quot i ng W i ls o n v . S ta te , 95 5 S

. W

. 2d 69 3, 69 6-9 7 (T ex . A pp . –W ac o 1 99 7, no pe t

. ))

. 4 Gue rra o f

hi s r ig ht t o rev iew

the re cord and to fil e a p ro se r espon se in both appel lat e cause num bers. See Ande rs , 386 U.S. at 74 4; Staff ord , 813 S.W .2d a t 510 n.3; see a lso 5 In re S chulm an , 2 5 2 S

. W

. 3 d a t 4 0 9 n . 2 3

. M o r e t h a n a n a d e q u a t e p e r i o d o f t i me has pass ed, a nd Gu er ra has not filed a pro s e respon se in eit her appel lat e c ause number

. See In r e Schul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 409

.

II. I NDEPE NDENT R EVI EW Upo n recei v ing an And ers br ief, w e mustco nducta full ex aminat ion of all the proceed ing s to deter mine w hether the cas e is w hol ly

fri v olo us. Pen son v. Oh io , 488 U .S. 75, 8 0 ( 1988)

. W e hav e rev iew ed th e ent ire record and couns el' s b ri efs and h av e found not hing t hat w ould arguably supp ort an a ppe al in eithe r appe llate cau se nu mb er. Se e Bledsoe v. Sta te , 178 S.W .3d 8 24, 8 26- 28 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005) (“ Due to the nature of And ers b r i e fs , b y

i n d i c a t i n g i n t h e o p i n i o n t h a t i t c o n s i d e r e d t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e b r i e fs and rev iew ed th e record for re v ersi ble er ro r but found n one, the cour t of appeals met t he
re q uirement of Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 47.1 .” ); Sta fford , 8 1 3 S

. W

. 2 d at 50 9. Acc ordin g ly , w e aff ir m the jud g ments of the tr ial co urt. III . M OT I ON TO W IT H D R AW In ac cordance w it h And ers , G uer ra ’s att or ney has as ked thi s C our

t for per mis si on to w it hdr aw

as co unsel i n both appel lat e c ause numbers. See Ande rs , 386 U .S. at 74 4;
see als o In re Sc hul

m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 408 n.17 ( ci ti ng Je ffer y v . St ate , 903 S.W .2d 7 76, 779 -80 (Te x . App .–Dallas 199 5, no pet .) (“If a n atto rney be liev es the a ppe al is friv olou s,N o sub st i t ut e cou nsel wi l l be appoi nt ed. Shoul d G uer r a wi sh t o seek f ur t her r ev i ew oft hese cases 6 by t he T ex as C ou rt of C ri m i na l A p p e a l s , he m us t ei t he r r etai n a n a t t orn ey t o fi l e a pe t i t i on for di s c ret i on ary r e v ie w o r f ile a p r o s e p e tit io n f o r d is c r e tio n a r y r e v ie w . A n y p e tit io n f o r d is c r e tio n a r y r e v ie w m u s t b e f ile d w ith in th ir ty d a ys f r o m t h e d a te o fe ith e r t h is o p in io n o r t h e la s t tim e ly m o tio n f o r r e h e a r in g t h a t w a s o v e r r u le d b y th is C o u rt. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 2. Any pet i t i on f or di scr et i onar y r ev i ew m ust be f i l ed wi t h t hi s C our t , af t er whi ch i t w i l l b e fo rw a rd e d to th e T e x a s C o u rt o f C rim i n a l A p p e a l s . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 3; 68. 7. Any pet i t i on f or d i s c re ti o n a ry re v i e w s h o u l d c o m p l y w i th th e re q u i re m e n ts o f R u l e 6 8 .4 o f th e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a te P ro c e d u re . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 4.
5 he mus t w it hdr aw

f ro m re pr esent ing the appel lan t. T o w it hdr aw from repr esent ati on, t he appoi nted attor ney

mustfil e a mot ion t o wit h d ra w ac compani ed by

a br ief s how ing the app e llate cou rt that th e ap pea l is f riv olou s.”) ( citation s omitt ed)). W e grant coun sel’s moti ons to w it hdr aw . W it hin fiv e day s of t he date of this C our t’ s o pin ion , c ounse l is order ed to s end a copy

of the opini on and jud g ment in ea ch appel lat e c ause number to Guer ra and
a d vis e h im o f

h is ri gh tt o f il e p e t it io n s fo r d is c re t io n a ry r e vie w. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 48.4; 6
see als o In re Sc hul

m an , 252 S.W .3d at 412 n.35; Ex par te O wens , 206 S.W .3d 6 70, 6 73 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

.

_________ _________

_____ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice
Do NotPubl is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 7.2( b) Del iv er ed and filed the 25th day of Febr uar

y , 201 0.