NO. 07-06 -024 9-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B OC TOBER4, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ BRIAN EVE RET TBRANDON, APPEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; TH NO . 48, 036- E; H ON ORABLE ABE LOPEZ , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t was pla ced on deferred adj udi cat ion for a per iod of 10 y ears a fter e nter ing a pl ea of g uil ty , purs uant to a ple a barg ain , to t he offense of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng . The Stat e s ubseq uentl y

fil ed a motio n to proceed w it h adj udi cat ion al leg ing thatappel lan t commi tted the n ew

offense of as saul t. The tr ial co urt s ubseq uentl y co nduct ed a hear ing and foun d the app ellantg uilty of agg ra v ate d kidna ppin g and , af ter receivi ng ev iden ce re g ardin g punish ment, ass ess ed appell ant’ s p uni shmentat confine ment i n the Ins ti tuti onal D i v i s i on o f t he Te x as D ep ar tm en t of C r i mi na l Ju s ti c e for a per i od o f 15 y ea rs . W e affi r m.2

A p p e ll a n t ’s a tt o rn e y h a s f il e d a n A n d e rs b ri e f a n d a m o t io n t o wit h d ra w. An d e rs v. Cal ifor nia , 386 U .S. 738, 87 S. Ct . 139 6, 18 L.E d. 2d 498 (1 967)
. In suppo rtof hismoti on to w it hdraw , couns el cer ti fies that he hasdi li g entl y rev iewed th e record, an d i n hi s o pin ion , the rec ord reflects no rev ersi ble error upon w hic h an appeal can be predi cat ed. Id. at 74 4- 45. In compl ian ce w it h Hi g h v . St ate, 573 S. W .2d 8 07, 8 13 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1978) , c ounse l has candi dly

di sc uss ed w hy , und er

the cont ro ll ing auth or it ies , there is no er ro r in the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment. Addi ti onal ly , c ounse l has cer ti fied that he has prov ide d appel lan t a copy of the And ers b ri ef and moti on to w it hdraw and appropr iat ely

adv is ed appe ll ant o f his r ig ht to fil e a pro serespon se in thi s matter
. Stafford v . St a te , 8 1 3 S .W .2d 5 03, 5 10 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1991)
. The cour t hasal so adv is ed appe ll ant o f his r ig ht t o f ile a pro se re spons e. Al thoug h, ap pel lan t re quested and was g ra nted an extens ion of ti me to file a pro serespon se, appel lan t hasnot filed a respon se. By his And ers brief , coun sel raises groun ds tha t could p ossibly sup port an a ppe al, but c oncl udes the a ppeal i s fr ivolo us. W e hav e rev iewed th e se grounds and made an inde pen den t rev iew of the ent ire record to det ermin e w het her there are a n y a rgua ble g ro unds w hic h mig ht suppo rtan a ppeal
. See P enson v . O hio , 488 U .S. 75, 1 09 S. Ct . 346 , 1 0 2 L
. E d
. 2 d 3 0 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; B l e d s o e v . S t a t e , 1 7 8 S
. W. 3 d 8 2 4 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 )
. W e have foun d no such arguable groun ds an d agree w ith cou nsel th at th e ap pea l is f rivolou s.Cou nsel sh all , w it hin fiv e days a fter t he opi nio n i s h anded dow n, send h iscl ien t a 1 copy of the o pin ion and jud g ment, alo ng w it h not ific ati on of the defendant’ s r ig ht t o fil e a pro sepeti ti on for dis creti onar y rev iew
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 8.4.

3 Acc ordi ng l y , c ou ns el ’ s mo ti on t o w i th draw i s h ereb y

g ran te d an d th e tr i al c ou rt’s jud g ment i s a ff ir med. 1

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not p ubl is h.