NO. 07-08 -033 6-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 A APR IL 29 , 200 9

_________

_________

_________

___ BRYAN THOMAS BLE VINS, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 31 ST DIS T RI CT COU RT OF W HE EL ERCOU NT Y; NO . 430 1; H ON ORABLE STEVEN EM ME RT, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON
Fol low ing a pl ea of

not g uil ty , Appell ant, Br y an T homas Ble v ins , w as conv ic ted b y a jury of aggravated sex ual assault of a child. Pun ishm ent w as assesse d by the trial courtSee T ex. Penal Cod e Ann

. § 22 .02 1(a)(2)(B) ( Verno n Sup p. 20 08). T he o f fense 1 of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d i s a first deg re e felony puni shabl e by

co nfinement in the I nst it uti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Justi ce for l ife or for a ny ter m of not more than 99 ye ars or les s than 5 y ears, and bya fine not to ex ceed $10,000

. W hil e the Judgm ent re flect s t hat t he tr ial co urt found the 1 enhancement to be “ True” the st re co rd does not re flectw hether the ind ic tment in fact c ontai ned an enhanc ement parag ra ph. Fur

ther more, the re por

ter ’s record of the puni shmentproceed ing reflect s t hat Appel lan t w as not a sk ed to ente r a pl ea as to any enhanc ement pa ra g ra ph. Beca use the pun ishm entassesse d falls w ithin the range of pun ishm entprovi ded bylaw , and beca use thi s s cr iv ener ’s er ro r may be cor re cte d by the entr y of a j udg ment nunc pr o tun c , w it hout appeal , w e find thi s i ss ue d o e s n o t p re senta po tenti all y pl ausi ble bas is to suppo rtan app eal. And ers v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S. Ct. 139 6, 18 L.Ed .2d 493 (1967 ).

2 2 at c onfinement for l ife. I n present ing thi s ap p e a l, c o u nsel has fil ed an And ers brief in 1 2
s up po rt of a mo ti on t o w i th draw . W e g ran t c ou ns el ’ s mo ti on a nd a ffir m. In s uppor

t of hi s mot ion t o w it hdraw , c ounse l cer ti fies he has co nduct ed a cons ci enti ous ex aminat ion of the record and, i n hi s o pin ion , t he record reflec ts no potent ial ly

pl ausi ble bas is to suppo rtan a ppeal

. And ers v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744- 45, 8 7 S. Ct . 13 96, 1 8 L.E d.2d 493 ( 1967) ; In r e Schul m an , 252 S.W .3d 4 03, 4 06 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 08). Coun sel cand idly discusse s w hy, unde r the con trolling autho rities, the a ppeal i s fr iv olo us. See Hi gh v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 807 , 813 (Tex.Crim.App . 197 8). C o u n s e l ha s al s o de mo n s t ra t e d th a the ha s co mp l i e d w i t h t h e re q u i re me n t s o f And ers and In reSchul

m an by(1) prov idi ng a copy of the br ief to Appel lan t, (2 ) noti fyi ng hi m of his r ig ht to fil e a p ro se re spons e if he desi re d to do so , and ( 3) i nformin g hi m of his r ig ht t o fil e aNotw it hst andi ng that Appell ant w as infor med of his ri g ht to fil e a p ro se peti ti on for 3 dis creti onar

y re v iew upon ex ecut ion of the Tr ial C our t’ s C er ti ficat ion of Def

endant’ s Righ t of A ppeal , coun sel mu st com ply w ith Rule 48 .4 of the T exas Rules of

Appe llate Proce dure w hic h prov ide s t hat c ounse l shal l w it hin fiv e day s a fter t his opi nio n i s h anded d ow n, s end App ellanta copy of

the op inion a nd jud gmen t toge t h er w ith no tif ication of his ri ght to f ile a pro s e pet it ion for d is creti onar y rev iew

. In r

e Schul m an , at408 n.22 & at411 n.35. See n. 1, su pra. 4 3 pro s e pet it ion for d is creti onar y rev iew

. In r

e Schul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 408

. By letter, th is 3 Cou rtg ra nted Appel lan t t hir ty day s i n w hic h to ex er ci se his r ig ht to f ile a respon se to couns el’ s bri ef, shoul d he be so incl ine d. Id. at 40 9 n.2 3. Appel lan t did not file a re spons e. The Stat e fil ed a letter

ac know led g ing the And ers b r i e f. By the And ers br ief, c ounse l ra is es four pos si ble poin ts o f e rror and then demonst ra tes w hy

no rev ersi ble er ro r ex is ts. Cou nsel ’s poi nts are: (1 ) the t ri al cour t er re d by den y ing Appellan t’s mot ion to supp ress; (2) the trial co u rt e rr e d by allow ing outcry tes ti m o n y o f

Vict or ia Han sen, an i nv est ig ator for C hil d Protec ti v e Ser v ic es; ( 3) the tr ial cour t er re d by

al low ing ex per

t w it nes s tes ti mony

of Dr . W il li am E. Hok e; an d ( 4) the ev ide nce w as factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t t he v erdict.
W e ha v e inde pen den tly ex am ined the en tire record to de term ine w het her the re are any non- friv olo us is sues w hic h mi g ht s uppor t t he appe al. See Pen son v. Oh io , 488 U .S. 75, 1 09 S. Ct . 346 , 102 L.E d.2d 300 ( 1988) ; In r e Schul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 409 ; Staff ord
v. State , 813 S.W .2 d 5 0 3 , 511 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 1). W e ha v e foun d no such issues. 4 See G ain ous v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App

. 196 9). Af ter rev iew ing the record4

and coun sel’s brief , w e agree w ith cou nsel th at th ere are no plau sible grounds for app eal. See Bledsoev. Sta te , 178 S.W .3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 5).
Acc ordin g ly , c ounse l' s mot ion to w it hdraw is g ra nted and t he tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment is aff ir med.
Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice
Do not p ubl is h.