NO. 07-08-0336-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

APRIL 29, 2009

______________________________

BRYAN THOMAS BLEVINS, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT COURT OF WHEELER COUNTY;

NO. 4301; HONORABLE STEVEN EMMERT, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a plea of not guilty, Appellant, Bryan Thomas Blevins, was convicted by

a jury of aggravated sexual assault of a child. Punishment was assessed by the trial court
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021(a)(2)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2008). The offense 1

of aggravated sexual assault of a child is a first degree felony punishable by confinement

in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life or for any

term of not more than 99 years or less than 5 years, and by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

While the Judgment reflects that the trial court found the 1 enhancement to be “True” the st

record does not reflect whether the indictment in fact contained an enhancement

paragraph. Furthermore, the reporter’s record of the punishment proceeding reflects that

Appellant was not asked to enter a plea as to any enhancement paragraph. Because the

punishment assessed falls within the range of punishment provided by law, and because

this scrivener’s error may be corrected by the entry of a judgment nunc pro tunc, without

appeal, we find this issue does not present a potentially plausible basis to support an

appeal.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2

2

at confinement for life. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders brief in 1 2

support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a

conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no

potentially plausible basis to support an appeal. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-

45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406

(Tex.Crim.App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling authorities,

the appeal is frivolous. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).

Counsel has also demonstrated that he has complied with the requirements of Anders and

In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying him of his right

to file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and (3) informing him of his right to file a
Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for 3

discretionary review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right

of Appeal, counsel must comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

which provides that counsel shall within five days after this opinion is handed down, send

Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with notification of his right to file

a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, at 408 n.22 & at 411 n.35.

See n. 1, supra. 4

3

pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. By letter, this 3

Court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to

counsel’s brief, should he be so inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did not file a response.

The State filed a letter acknowledging the Anders brief.

By the Anders brief, counsel raises four possible points of error and then

demonstrates why no reversible error exists. Counsel’s points are: (1) the trial court erred

by denying Appellant’s motion to suppress; (2) the trial court erred by allowing outcry

testimony of Victoria Hansen, an investigator for Child Protective Services; (3) the trial

court erred by allowing expert witness testimony of Dr. William E. Hoke; and (4) the

evidence was factually insufficient to support the verdict.

We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there are

any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Stafford

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such issues.4

See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). After reviewing the record
4

and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel that there are no plausible grounds for appeal.

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court’s judgment

is affirmed. 

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice

 

Do not publish.