NO. 07-07 -040 9-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 FEB RU ARY5, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ ALFREDO ANT ONIO T REVINO, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 28 4 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF MO NT GO ME RY COU NT Y; NO . 04- 06- 0417011- CR ; H ON ORABLE CA RA W OOD , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t Al fredo A ntoni o Tre v ino appeal s from the jud g ment rev oki ng hi s d eferred adj udi cat ion co mmunity su per v is ion , adj udi cat ing hi m g uil ty of the o ffense of inj ur

y to a chi ld and s entenci ng hi m to t en y ears o f confinement in the I nst it uti onal D iv is ion of the T exas Departm entof

Crimin al Justice. Appe llant's att orne y has f iled a brief

in comp liance w it h Anders

v. C ali for nia , 386 U. S. 738, 87 S. Ct . 139 6, 18 L.E d.2d 493 ( 1967) and In re Schulm an, 252 S.W .3d 403 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 8). Agreein g w it h ap poin ted coun sel’sSee Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 22.021( a) (1 )( B) ( Ver non 200 7)
. 1 At the hear ing , appel lan t’ s couns el answered “n ot t ru e” on a ppel lan t’ s b ehal f to the 2 Stat e’s ei g hth a ll eg ati on bec ause he di d not feel the c ondi ti on th at ap pel lan t notg o i nto o r w it hin a di sta nce of 1,000 feet o f premi ses w here c hil dren c ommonly g ather i s a proper condi ti on for inj ur

y to a chi ld. The Stat e took the p osi ti on th e c ondi ti on w as ag re ed to at the t ime appel lan t entered his g uil ty pl ea. The cour

t ag re ed and found the S tate’ s e ig hth all eg ati on to be t ru e. 2 conc lus ion the re cord fail s t o s how any arg uabl y meri tor iou s i ss ue th at c oul d s uppor t t he appeal , w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment. In Jun e 20 04, app ellantw as indicte d on tw o cou nts of agg rav ate d sexual assau lt of a chi ld. I n J anuar

y 2007, appel lan t, pursuantto a pl ea ag re ement, ple ad g uil ty to the 1 les ser-i ncl uded offense of i nju ry to a c hil d and re cei v ed deferred adj udi cat ion co mmunity super v is ion for a per iod of ten y ears. Appel lan t’ s d eferred adj udica ti on w as condi ti oned on h is comp liance wi th spe cif ied te rms an d con dition s. In M ay 2007, the S tate filed a M oti on to R ev oke Communi ty Super v is ion , al leg ing ten v iol ati ons of the te rms of appel lan t’ s d eferred adj udication communi ty su per v is ion
. This moti on w as heard by the cour t in Aug ust 2007. Appel lan t ple ad ”t ru e” to al l but o ne of the Stat e’s all eg ati ons. The cour t hea rd ev ide nce from appel lan t’ s p ro bati on officer that 2 appel lan t fail ed to co mply w it h s ev eral ter ms and co ndi ti ons of his co mmunity su per v is ion by , among othe rs , fail ing to re por t, faili ng to compl ete c ommunity se rv ic e, fail ing to abi de by trav el re str icti ons, fail ing to abst ain from t h e us e of cont ro ll ed s ubst ances , and fail ing to rem ain atleast 1,0 00 feetf rom p remise s where children co mm only gathe r, and o v erall “h eld min imal reg ard for the condi ti ons of proba ti on.” The c our t al so heard appel lan t’ s b ri ef tes ti mony

i n w hic h he ind ic ated to t he c our t hi s d esi re to cont inu e hi s p ro bati on.3

Base d on app ellant ’s pleas of “true” a nd the ev iden ce prese nte d be fore it, the court rev oked app ellant ’s com mu nity supe rv ision, adjudica ted app ellantg uilty of injury to a child and as ses sed appel lan t’ s p uni shmentat ten y ears o f confinement in the I nst it uti onal Div ision. T he co urt certif ied ap pellan t’s rig ht of app eal, a nd h e time ly

f iled no tice of

app eal. Thereafter , appell ant' s appoi nted appel lat e counsel fil ed a moti on to w it hdraw and a br ief i n s uppor

t pursuantto Anders in w hic h s he c erti fies that she has dil ig entl y rev iewed the record and , in her profession al opin ion, u nde r the cont rolling aut horities and facts of this cas e, t here i s n o rev ersi ble error or leg it imat e grounds on w hic h an appeal arg uabl y ca n be pred icated . Th e brief

d iscusses the p roced ural history of th e case and the pro ceed ings i n conn ect ion w it h the moti on to rev oke appel lan t’ s c ommunity su per v is ion
. Cou nsel dis cus ses the appl ic abl e l aw , i denti fies poss ibl e g ro unds for appe al, then se ts forth the re asons thos e pos si ble g ro unds ar e notarg uabl y mer it or iou s. C ounse l has cer ti fied th at a c opy of the Anders br ief and moti on to w it hdraw hav e been ser v ed on appel lan t, and t hat couns el has adv is ed appell ant of his rig ht to rev iew the re cord and file a pro se respon se. Johns on v

. St ate , 885 S.W .2d 641 , 645 (Tex.App .–W aco 1 994 , pet . ref'd). By letter, th is Cou rt als o not ified appel lan t of hi s o ppor tuni ty to submi t a re spons e to the Anders br ief and moti on to w it hdraw

fil ed by hi s c ounse l. Ap pel lan t has not filed a respon se. In con formity w ith the stand ards set o ut by the United State s Supre me Court, w e w ill not r ule on t he moti on to w it hdraw unti l w e hav e i ndependen tl y ex amined the record. Nichol s v . St ate , 954 S.W .2d 83, 86 (Tex.App .–S an An ton io 1 9 97, no pe t.). If this Court4

deter mines the appeal has mer it , w e w il l re mand itto the t ri al cour t for appoi ntment of new couns el. See S taff

or d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 503 , 511 (Tex.Crim.App .19 91). Coun sel f irst notes tha t app ellant ’s p lea of “true ” to e v en one a llegation in the State ’s moti on w as suff ic ien t to suppor t a jud g ment rev oki ng community super v is ion
. Cole v

. St ate, 578 S. W .2d 1 27, 1 28 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1979) ; Lewis v. Sta te, 195 S.W .3d 2 05, 2 09 (Tex .App. –San A ntoni o 2006, pet. de n ied). C ounse l als o ev alu ates the poss ibi li ty that appel lan t mi g ht arg ue he re cei v ed i nef fe ct iv e as si sta nce of couns el in the rev ocat ion proceed ing s. See S tr

ickl and v . Washi ngton, 466 U. S. 6 68, 1 04 S. Ct . 205 2, 80 L.E d.2d 674 (1 984) and Her

nandez v. Sta te, 726 S.W .2d 53, 57 (Tex .C ri m.App. 198 6 ) (e stabli shi ng stan dard for ef

fective assistance of

coun sel). W e a gr ee wi th cou nsel th at th e record cont ain s n o s uppor

t for suc h a c ontent ion
. Las tl y , w e ag re e w it h c ouns e l th a t t he record does not suppo rta c ontent ion the sent ence impos ed by the c our t w as improper . See Tex . Penal Co de Ann . § 22.04 (V er non 2005) ; Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 12.34 ( Ve rn o n 2003)
. See also Jor dan v . St ate, 495 S. W .2d 9 49, 9 52 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1973) ; Rod ri guez v. Sta te, 9 1 7 S
. W
. 2 d 9 0, 92 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo 1996, pet. re f’d) ( Tex as cour ts hav e tradi ti onal ly

hel d tha t as l ong as the sent ence is w it hin the ra ng e of pu nis hment es tabl is hed by the Leg is lat ure i n a v ali d s tatut e, itdoes not v iol ate s tate or federal prohi bit ion s)
. Our rev iew co nv inc es us that appel lat e couns el condu cte d a c omplet e rev iew of the re cord. W e hav e al so made an ind ependentex aminat ion of the e nti 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 from the re v ocat ion ,C ounse l shal l, w it hin fiv e days a fter t he opi nio n i s h anded dow n, s end her cl ien t 3 a cop y of the op inion and jud gmen t, alon g w ith no tif ication of the de fend ant ’s ri ght to f ile a pr o s e peti ti on for dis creti onar y rev iew
. See Tex . R . Ap p. P . 48. 4.

5 adj udi cat ion of g uil t and sent ence. W e ag re e i t present s n o arg uabl y mer it or iou s g ro unds for re v iew
. Acc ordin g ly , w e g ra nt c ounse l' s mot ion to w it hdraw and aff ir m the jud g ment of the 3 tr ial co urt.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.