See A nder s v . C ali for nia , 386 U.S. 738, 744-745, 87 S .C t. 1396, 18 L. Ed.2d 493 1 (196 7). NO. 07-07 -017 8-CR, 07-07 -017 9-CR and 07 -07-01 86-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 JAN UA RY

4, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ JUAN MANUEL GOMEZ, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 29 9 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF T RAVI S CO UNT Y; TH NO . D -1 -D C- 06- 300050, D -1 -D C- 06- 300153, D -1 -D C- 06- 300049;

HO NO RA BLE C HA RLE S F . BA IR D, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t J uan G omez appeal s three conv ic ti ons and s entenc es commi tti ng hi m to the T e xas D e par

tment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce, Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion , for the o ff enses of ag g ra v ated ro bber

y , ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng , and robber y . In tw o of t he appeal s a ppel lan t present s an arg ument on the meri ts, but in the t hird c ase his co unsel fil ed an And ers br ief 12

and moti on to w it hdraw . For the re asons that follo w , w e aff ir m the jud g ments of the tr ial cour t i n eac h c ase and g ra nt c ounse l’ s mot ion to w it hdraw . Back g ro und T e s t im o n y sh o we d t h a t , a b o u t1 0 : 0 0 p . m . o n De c e m b e r 20 , 2 0 0 5 , a p p e ll a n t a n d two oth er me n ap proa ched Ester Maldon ado and h er a dult dau ghter T om i Cep eda in a n Aust in la u n d ro ma t
. O n e o f t h e t h r e e p u l l e d a g u n o n M a l d o n a d o a n d C e p e d a and demanded money . Anothe r fris ked Cep eda, w ho w as eig ht mont hs preg nant. W hen C epeda a sk ed the tr io to lea v e becau se she w as preg nant, appel lan t, w ho apparentl y friske d Ce p eda, conv inc ed th e g unman th ey sh oul d depar

t. The tr io then left t he l aundromat. Testi mony als o show ed that dur ing the e ar ly mor nin g of Janua ry

4, 2006, appel lan t and tw o me n ap proa c h e d Je remia h Murphy near the entry of his g irlfriend ’s Austin apar tment. O ne of t h e t h re e b ra ndi shed a g un and ordered M ur phy to the g ro und. On dis cov er ing he h ad no cas h butan ATM c ard, t hey took the key s t o hi s v ehi cl e and forced him to l eav e the ap artment g ro unds w it h the m. I n the v ehi cl e, ap pel lan t, seat ed i n the passe nger seat , h e ld a gun on Murphy. Anoth er me mb er of the trio drove and the th ird ro de i n the bed of the tr uck
. Unb eknow nst to the ki dnappers, Mu rp hy ’s g ir lfri end w it ness ed t h e e ve n t s f ro m h e r ap a rt m e n t a n d s u m m o n e d p o li c e . O u t s id e t h e a p a rt m e n tco m p le x a pol ic e c ru is er

g av e c hase.Tex. Pena l Code An n. § 29 .03 (a)(2) ( Verno n 20 04). 2 Tex. Pena l Code An n. § 20 .04 (b) (Vernon 2 004 ). 3 W e herein after re fer to eac h c ause number onl y by i ts las t t hree di g it s. 4 Tex. Pena l Code An n. § 29 .02 (a) (Vernon 2 004 ). 5 3 App ellantwas su bseque ntly ap preh end ed and in dicted for the a gg rav ate d robb ery 2 and ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng of Mu rp hy and the a g gra vated robber y of Ma ldo nado. The 3 Stat e fil ed th ese all eg ati ons as separate o ff enses i n c ause numbers D -1 -D C- 06- 300153, the robber

y of Ma ldo nado; D- 1- DC -0 6- 30049, the a g g ra v ated ki dnappi ng of Mu rp hy ; and D-1-DC- 06-3 005 0, th e aggravated rob bery of Murph y . App ellantplead g uilty to ea ch 4 offen s e a l t h o u g h b y a g r e e me n t t h e c h a rg e o f a g g ra v a t e d ro b b e r y o f M a l d o n a do w as re duced to the l ess er

offense of robbe ry . Una ble to re ach a punis hment ag re ement w it h 5 the S tate, appel lan t el ect ed to have the cour t s et pu nis hment. The c our t ac cept ed app ellant ’s g uilty p le as bu t def erred sen ten cing fo r preparat ion of a pre-sent ence inv est ig ati on repor

t. Appel lan t t est if ie d d ur ing the puni shmenthear ing , as di d hi s father and g ir lfri end. By hi s t est imony , app ell ant a dmit ted h is i nv olv ement i n the offenses . The cour

t s entenc ed appe ll ant to conc ur re nt t er ms i n the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce, Ins ti tuti onal Di v is ion of tw enty y ears for

the ro bber

y of Ma ldo nado, fifteen y ears for the a gg rav ate d kidna ppin g of Murp hy, an d thirty y ears for t he a gg rav ate d robb ery of Mur phy
.4

Appel lan t fil ed moti ons for new tri al in each cas e w hic h the co urt den ied w it hout a hear ing
. These ap peal s fol low ed.

Den ial of Ev ide nti ar

y H ear ing on M oti ons for N ew Tri al In a si ng le is sue, appel lan t c ontends i n c ause numbers 0 49 and 050: “The tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on i n deny ing ap p e lla n t’s mot ion for n ew trial w ithou t cond ucting an ev iden tiary hea ring on the i ssues of an involunta ry ple a/i neffect iv e as si sta nce of couns el. ” W e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t' s d eni al of an ev ide nti ar y hear ing on a moti on for new tr ial for an abuse of

di sc re ti on. W

all ace v. State, 106 S.W .3d 103 , 108 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 3). A defendant' s r ig ht to a hear ing on a motion for newtri al is not abso lut e. Rozell v. Sta te, 176 S.W .3d 228 , 230 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 2005 ). T hus, a trial court is not required to con duct a he aring of

the de fend ant ’s motio n for new trial if t h e m a t ters raised in th e mo tion a re deter minabl e from the re cord, or if the moti on and suppo rt ing aff ida v it s a re not suffici ent to pu t t he tr ial co urt on noti ce that re asona ble g ro unds fo r a newtr ial may ex is t. Jo rd

an v. State, 883 S. W .2d 6 64, 6 65 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1994)
. To deter "fishi ng ex pedi ti ons, " a prereq uis it e to a hear ing on a moti on for new tr ial is thatthe moti on mus t be suppo rt ed by an a ff ida v itsh ow ing the tr uth o f the g ro unds of attac k. Rey

es v. State, 849 S.W .2d 812, 816 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1993)
. The aff ida v itoffered in suppo rt“ must re flectthatreaso nabl e grounds ex is t for hol din g thatsu ch re li ef coul d be grant ed. ” M

ar ti nez v. Sta te, 74 S. W .3d 19, 21 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 2) ( quoti ng Jor dan, 883 S.W .2d a t 665 ). G enerall y , a hear ing is neces sar y if the motion and attac hed affidav itorAttach ed to each mot ion is a p age cont aining a certif icate of presen tm ent , w hich 6 is si g ned by

appel lan t’ s c ounse l a n d t he tr ial j udg e. Immedia tel y bel ow the cer ti ficat e appears a gen er icorder for s etti ng the hear ing of a moti on for new tr ial
. The order cont ains a spa ce for entry of th e dat e app ellantf iled his mo tion for n ew trial. T he sp ace is bl ank. The order

al so cont ain s s paces for t he c our t t o s peci fy a dat e a n d ti me of 5 aff ida v it s ra is e matters not deter minabl e from the re cord that coul d ent it le the d efendant to r e li ef. W

all ace, 1 0 6 S
. W
. 3 d a t 1 0 8
. I n re v i e w i n g a t r i a l c o u rt ' s fa i l u re t o c o nducta hear ing of a moti on for new tr ial , t he appe ll ate c our t mus t as k "w hether , on thi s re cord, t he tr ial courtcould hav e reas onabl y denied a ppel lan t a hear ing on his moti on for new tr ial ." W all ace, 106 S. W .3d a t 108 ( emphasi s i n or ig ina l)
. The tr ial co urt d o e s not a buse it s dis creti on w hen i t ov er ru les the moti on w it hout a hear ing i f the moti on and acc ompany ing aff ida v it s do not show

the mov ant coul d be enti tl ed to reli ef. See Wall ace, 106 S.W .3d a t 108. Besid es a timely f iled mo tion w ith supp orting af f idavits tha t dem onst rate rea sona ble g ro unds for reli ef, the r ule req uires ti mely present ati on of the moti on to the tr ial co urt. See Tex . R. App. P. 21 .6; R ozell , 176 S. W .3d a t 230
. "[T]o presenta mot ion i n the co ntext of a mo tion for new trial, the d efend antmustg iv e the trial court act ual no tice tha t he tim ely filed a mot ion for n ew

tr ial and [thathe] re q uest s a hear ing o n t h e m o ti on for new tr ial ." Rozell , 176 S.W .3d at 230. In other w ords, if a defendant desi re s a hear ing on a moti on for new tr ial , he must re q uestone. Id. Absen t a request for a hea ring, the rev iew ing court need no t dec ide w hether the tr ial co urt abused it s d is creti on i n fail ing to hol d a h ear ing on a moti on for new

tr ial
. Id. Here, ap pel lan t t imel y

fil ed moti ons for new

tri al on March 6, 2007. Absen t from the re cord i s e v ide nce of an ex press req uestfor a hear ing on the motion s. For purpos es of 6h e a rin g. T h e se sp a ce s a lso are bl a n k. Ap p e lla n t’ s m o ti o n s d o no tr e q u e sta h e a rin g.

Rathe r, th ey as k th e c ou rt to g ran t a ne w tr i al
. N or do th e orde rs of th e tr i al court in re spons e to appel lan t’ s mot ions deny a he ar ing of the mot ion s; ra ther , t hey deny the mo tions. 6 this op inion, w e w ill assum e, bu t do no t decid e, th at ap pellan tr e qu e s t e d an evidentia ry hear ing w hen he del iv ered g ener icorders t o th e c our t atthe ti me of pre sent ment of the mo tions. W e proceed , t hen, to t h e i nq uir y w hether appel lan t’ s mot ion s a nd affidav it s s how re asona ble grounds entitl ing him to a hear ing of the mot ion s. Jo rd an, 883 S. W .2d a t 665
. A trial court ma y

not accep t a plea o f

guilty unle ss it appe ars the p lea w as en tered f reely an d v ol un ta r i l y . Tex
. C od e C r i m. Proc . An n. a rt. 2 6. 13 ( b) ( Ve r no n Su pp . 20 07 )
. A p r i ma facie show ing thatthe ple a of an acc used w as know ing and v olu ntar y i s made w hen t he re cord s how s t he accus ed rec eiv ed admonis hments in compli ance w it h arti cl e 26.13 of the code of cr imi nal procedu re . See Tex
. Co d e C rim
. Proc. Ann. ar t. 26.13 (V er non Su pp. 2007) ; Sm it

h v . St ate , 857 S.W .2d 71, 73 (Tex .App. –Da ll as 1993, pet. re f’d) ; Soto v. State, 837 S. W .2d 4 01, 4 05 ( Tex .App. –Da ll as 1992, n o p e t. ). T he burden t hen s hifts to the defendant to show

he did not understa nd th e c onseq uence s o f his pl ea. See S m it h, 857 S.W .2d a t 73- 74; Soto, 837 S. W .2d a t 405
. An app ell ant w ho c lai ms hi s p lea w as inv olu ntar

y due to ine ff ect iv e ass is tanc e of c ounse l must show by a preponderance of the evidence th at coun sel's performa nce fell below an object iv e stan dard of reason able ness, and th e d e f ic ien cy

rendered hi s g uil ty

pl ea unk now ing and inv olu ntar y . Dusen berry v. S ta te, 9 1 5 S .W .2d 9 47, 9 49 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 1996, pet. ref’d) , citi ng st Rod ri guez v. Sta te, 899 S.W .2d 658, 664- 66 ( Tex .C ri m.App.1 995) , cer t. denied, 516 U .S.T he w ritten adm onish me nt con taine d the state me nts signed by appe llant an d his 7 c ou ns el req ui r ed b y

a rt. 2 6. 13 ( d) o f t he Co de of C r i mi na l P roc ed ure. Te x . C od e C r i m. Proc. An n. art. 2 6.1 3(d) (Vernon Supp . 200 7). 7 946, 1 3 3 L
. Ed
. 2 d 307, 116 S. C t. 385 ( 1995)
. See al so Str ickl and v . Washi ngton, 466 U. S. 6 68, 8 0 L. Ed. 2d 674, 104 S. C t. 2052 ( 1984)
. Si g nific ant mi si nformati on by co unsel that ind uces a guil ty

pl ea mak es the p lea i nv olu ntar y . Ex parte Kelly , 676 S.W .2d 1 32, 134- 35 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1984) ; Fi m ber g v . St ate , 922 S.W .2d 2 05, 2 08 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] , pet . ref’d)
. st By his aff ida v it s suppo rt ing his moti ons for new tr ial , appel lan t av er re d h is t ri al couns el mis led hi m in to g uil ty pl eas w it h no ag re ement for puni shmentunder

the bel ief the cour t w oul d render

a more l e n ie n t s entenc e tha n the Sta te’ s p lea barg ain offer on puni shmentof fifteen y ears c onfinement. I n hi s b ri ef, appel lan t t ells us thathe “ did not recogniz e tha t he cou ld receive more tha n the State ’s of fer by followi ng his attorne y ’s advice.” App ellantdoe s not con ten d the trial court’s adm onitio ns con c e rn in g the possible sent enci ng rang e w ere i nadeq uate, and w e f ind the cour t proper ly

admonishe d appel lan t conc er nin g the ra ng e of puni shment , both orall y and in w ri ti ng . See Te x . Code Cri m. Proc. Ann . art. 26 .13 (Vernon Supp . 200 7). Af ter pla c in g app ellantund er oath , the court 7 det ermin ed th at ap pellan t had no m ent al illness, his atto rney ha d an sw ered all his ques t io n s , a nd h e un dersto od th e pu rpose of the he aring. In respon se to th e cou rt’s question ing, appe llant ad mitt ed guilt for the of fense s alleged. Accordin g to ap pellan t, his plea w as no t base d on a p romise o r comp ulsion. Appe llant agreed w ith the court tha t his8

couns el and t he St ate w ere unabl e to re ach an ag re ement for puni shment
. Appel lan t ack now led g ed hi s d eci si on th at t he c our t s et pu nis hment. The c o u rt t h e n ex pla ine d the av ail abl e s entenc ing rang e s panned fiv e y ears t o l ife i n pr is on. Appel lan t ac know led g ed his understa ndi ng of the punis hment poss ibi li ti es. Ag ain he ag re ed that t he puni shment deci si on w as left t o the di sc re ti on of the cour t. The thes is o f

appell ant’ s a ff ida v ittes ti mony i n s uppor

t of hi s mot ion s for

new tr ial is he l ack ed unde rs tandi ng of the p lea paper w or k a nd th e c onseq uence s o f rej ect ing the Stat e’s pl ea offer and lea v ing se ntenc ing to the j udg e. In hi s a ff ida v it s, a p p e lla nt s tated he i ntended to acc ept t he St ate’ s p lea barg ain offer of fifteen y ears c onfinement but b ased on hi s c ounse l’ s represent ati on th at “ he c oul d g et [ appel lan t] a bet ter deal i f [he] pl ead g uil ty and ‘t ri ed’ the cas e to the j udg e,” he reje cte d the pl ea offer
. C o n ce rn ing the ple a paper w or k, appel lan t’ s a ff ida v it s s aid , “ I di d notread or go ov er the enti re paper

before I si g ned i t. [Tr ial co unsel ] did not go ov er the ple a paper

w or k w it h me w ord for w ord. W hat I remember is that he basically poin ted out where I shou ld sig n my nam e, an d I did so. ” The record of in -c our

t proceed ing s t ell s a different sto ry . At t he pl ea hear ing , i n the presenc e of appel lant, h is tr ial co unsel as ked to ex pla in on th e record s ome as pect s o f appel lan t’ s s ig nin g of the p lea papers. He ex pla ine d appel lan t’ s readi ng and w ri ti ng defici enci es and t old the cour t he dis cus sed the w aiv er of r ig hts document w it h appel lan t “as if h e w ere a Sp anish spea ker.” Counsel con tinue d, te lling the co urt, “In oth er w ords, w e we n to v er and looked at each line and discussed it and w hatit mea nt be cause his la n gu a ge sk il ls a re ve ry l im it e d
. ” A p p e ll a n te xp re s s e d n o d is a gr e e m e n t
. T o t h e co n t ra ry, in re spons e to spec ificques ti oni ng bythe cour t that foll ow ed, appel lan t, under oath, ag re edThe repor te r’s record does not re flectthatappel lan t ex hib it ed di ff ic ulty 8 understa ndi ng or

respon din g t o q uest ion s from cou nsel or the cour

t, eit her at the p lea hear ing or d u ring hi s t est imony at the p uni shmenthear ing
. Dur ing hi s p uni shment testim ony, for example , app ellantv oiced an ap ology to the v ictims of

the of fense s. 9 that his att or ney

ex pla ine d the doc u m e n t to hi m. A ppel lan t t old the cour t, “Y es, he ex pla ine d i t.” 8 App ellanturges Tor

re s v . St ate, 4 S. W .3d 295 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 1999, st pet. re f’d) and Rey

es v. State, 82 S.W .3 d 3 5 1 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 2001, pet. st re f’d) su ppor

t hi s c lai m of tr ial co urt er ro r. W e di sag re e. In Torres, the par

ti es w aiv ed a cour

t repor ter for t he s entenc ing hear in g s o no re cord ex is ted o f the tr ial court ’s admonishment s and the respon ses or ot her tes ti mony

of the d efendant. 4 S. W .3d a t 296
. Fur ther , t he opi nio n does not dis cus s t he effect of the defendant’ s respon ses to any w ri tten admoni shment s. H ere, t he repor ter ’s record s ets forth both the b re adth of the c our t’ s a dmonit ion s a nd i nq uir y of appel lan t a t t he pl ea hear ing as w ell as appel lan t’ s u neq uiv ocal respon ses . The facts in Reyes li kew is e di sti ng uis h i t from the c ase at ba r. There, ba sed on th e aff ida v it s o f the appel lan t, his tri al coun sel , and another atto rn ey , the appell ate cour t found is sues concer nin g the cont ent of conv ersat ion s b etw een t he appe ll ant a nd hi s c ounse l not deter minabl e from t he record. 82 S. W .3d a t 353 -5 4. Reyes did no t presen t a record cont ain ing deta il ed and proper oral and w ri tten admoni shment s, c lear and une q uiv ocal aff ir mati v e respon ses by the defendant, and a post -t ri al aff ida v itproffer ing the attempt ed deni al of plea- hear ing tes ti mony . The meri ts of appell ant’ s a ss erti o n s in h is moti ons forNot onl y w as the mat ter of appel lan t’ s rev iew

of the p lea papers w it h hi s c ounse l 9 deter minabl e from t he record, t he record reflect s t hat t he s ame j udg e w h o admoni shed appel lan t and co nduct ed th e pl ea and sent enci ng hear ing s r ule d on his moti ons for new trial. The direct conf licts be t we e n a ppe llant’s af f idavit testimo ny and his statem ent s in ope n c o u rt , and between th e af f idavit testimo ny and app ellant ’s trial coun sel’s re present ati ons to t he c our t, w ere the re fore k now n by the tr ial jud g e w hen he c onsi dered th e m o ti o n s fo r ne w tr ia l a n d w h e th e r to ho ld an evid e n ti a ry he a rin g.

Reg ardin g sent enci ng , the cour t spec ific all y ask ed appel lan t, “Y ou u n d e rs tand, 10 si r, thatthe full ra ng e of puni shmenti s a v ail abl e to me, as littl e as f iv e and all the w ay to c o n f in e m e n tfo r l if e ? Do yo u u n d e rs t a n d t h a t ? ” W h e n a p p e ll a n tre s p o n d e d a f f ir m a t ive ly, the court con tinue d, “And y ou a re leaving thatto me and my discretion ?” App ellantagain re spond ed affirmat iv ely
. 10 new tr ial deny ing thathe a nd hi s tr ial couns el thoroug hly re v iew ed th e pl ea admoni shment s w ere f ully

dete rmina ble f rom th e record, w ithou t a hea ring. Accordingly , the case at b ar, 9 unl ik e Rey

es , c omes w it hin the set tl ed ru le that a hear ing on a moti on for new tr ial i s n ot re q uired if the is sue is determi nabl e from t he record. See M acr i v. State, 12 S. W .3d 5 05, 510 (Te x .Ap p.– San Ant onio 199 9, pe t. ref 'd) ( citi ng Reye s v

. St ate, 849 S. W .2d 8 12, 8 16 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1993) ). As not ed, app ellant also conten ds his guilty plea w as indu ced by h is coun sel’s mis re present ati on th at hi s p uni shment f o ll ow ing an o pen pl ea w oul d be les s t han t he Sta te’s f if

tee n-y ear of

fer. As app ellantdescribes it in his af f idavit, he unde rstood f rom h is l awy er ’ s a dv i c e th att ur ni ng d ow n th e St ate ’s p lea o ffer w as a n o- l os e de al for h i m, becau se if he p lea d g uil ty the cour

t c oul d notse ntenc e hi m to m o re ye a rs co nfinement tha n the State of

fered , butcould sen ten ce him to fewer y ears. T he co nte ntion run s directly contrar y to ap pe l l an t’ s affi r ma ti v e res po ns es to th e c ou rt th at he un de rs to od th e cou rt’s admoni shment s. To be enti tl ed to a hear ing on his moti ons, appel lan t w as not req uired 10 to presentfacts es tabl is hin g a pr ima facie ca se his pl ea w as re ndered i nv olu ntar y by11

significan t misinforma tion f rom h is counse l. Se e Jor dan, 883 S. W .2d a t 665
. But he w as re qui re d to su b m itm o re th a n a n e w st a te m e n t o f hi s u n d e rst a n d in g of

th e ava ila b le ran ge of punis hment, different from the unders tandi ng he ex press ed w hen t he c our t q uest ion ed him abo ut that v ery ma tter. In the face of his respo nses to the co urt’s clear adm onitio ns, appel lan t’ s aff ida v itdoes not presen t a re asona ble g ro und for hol din g thathi s g uil ty pl ea w as ind uced by

a mi srepresent ati on by hi s c ounse l. For the sam e reaso n, w e f ind ap pellan t’s af f idavits prese nte d no reasona ble ba sis s u p p o rt in g t h e n e c e s s it y o f a n e vid e n t ia ry h e a ri n g o f a p p e ll a n t ’s cl a im o f

in e f fe c t ive ass is tanc e of coun sel
. See Mess er v. Sta te, 757 S.W .2d 820, 82 7- 28 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1s t D is t.] 1988, pet. ref’d) ( defendant pl ead g uil ty after recei v ing notic e i n open cour t t hat all se ntenc ing opti ons w ere av ail abl e, ag re ed he understo od th e c our t’ s p uni shment lat it ude , a n d stated no promis es w ere made t o obt ain hi s p lea ; s econd prong of the Str ickl and stan dard not me t). T he record required no developm ent to allow the trial court to c oncl ude t he facts as ser ted i n appel lan t’ s a ff ida v itw oul d notsu ppor t a findi ng of inef fective assistance of

coun sel und er Str

ickl and
. See Her

nandez v. Sta te, 8 4 S.W .3d 26, 35 (Te x .Ap p.– T exarkana 20 02, pet. ref ’d) ( citi ng Me ss er

, 757 S.W .2d a t 828 , and fin d in g n o a b u se of dis creti on i n fail ure to hol d hear ing on mot ion for n ew tr ial as ser

ti ng inef fective assistance led to guilty plea). Conclud ing the trial court did not abu se its discretion b y failing to hold an ev iden tiary hea ring before overruling app ellant ’s m otion s for n ew trial, w e overrule appe llant’s single is sue in caus e numbers 0 49 and 050.12 And ers Br ief i n C ause Number 153 In c ause number

153, appel lan t fil ed a moti on for new tr ial as ser

ti ng the v erdict w as cont ra ry to the l aw

and ev ide nce. The moti on, unli ke thos e f il ed in cause numbers 049 an d 050, did not cont ain a s uppor ti ng aff ida v itor

othe rw is e arg ue i neffect iv e as sis ta n ce of couns el re sul ted i n an i nv olu ntar y pl ea. By

an o rd er i denti cal to thos e i n 049 and 050 the cour t den ied the moti on. Appel lan t doe s n ot no w co mplai n of the tr ial co u rt ’s fail ure to g ra nt a hear ing of the mot ion
. Rat her , hi s c ounse l f ile d a m o ti on to w it hdraw from appel lat e represent ati on and a bri ef pursuantto Ander s v. Cal if or nia , 386 U .S. 738, 744- 745, 87 S. Ct . 139 6, 18 L.Ed.2d 49 3 ( 1967)
. Appel lat e c ounse l sta tes he d il ig entl y rev iew ed the record and in his professi onal opi nio n there is no re v ersi ble error or l eg it imat e g ro unds upon w hic h a n on- friv olo us appeal ca n arg uabl y be pred ic ated. H e furt her represent s t hat a c opy of the And ers

br ief w as ser

v ed on appel lan t. Att ached to the b rief w as a c opy of a lette r from counsel to appel lan t not ify ing hi m of his r ig ht t o respon d to the And ers br ief and rev ie w th e record. See Johnso n v . St ate, 885 S.W .2d 641 , 645 (Tex.App .–W aco 1994, pet. re f’d)
. By

l etter , t his co u rtnoti fied appe ll ant t hat h is att or ney fil ed an And ers br ief and moti on to w it hdraw and h e wa s enti tl ed to rev iew the re cord and re spond
. Appel lan t made no respon se. W e w ill notrule on cou nsel’s mo tion to w ithdra w un t il we h a ve inde pen den tly ex amined the enti re record. Nichol s v . St ate, 954 S.W .2d 83, 86 (Tex.App .–S an An ton io 1997, no pet .)
. If w e deter mine the appeal has meri t, w e w il l re mand the ca se to t he tr ial13

cour t for appointmentof

newappell ate c ounse l. See S taff or d v . St ate, 813 S. W .2d 5 03, 511 (Tex.Crim.App .19 91). The br ief of appel lan t’ s c ounse l dis cus sed the p ro cedural his tor y of the c ase and the e v ide nce present ed attr ial
. Cou nsel su ppor ted h is di sc uss ion w it h c it ati o n s t o the record an d case s w here app licable. Coun sel specif ically ident if ied two issues. Th e f irst w as ev ide nti ar

y , c oncer nin g appel lan t’ s sol e tri al obj ect ion , w hic h the cou rtov er ru led , and the secon d the co urt’s o rder overr uling appe llant’s mo tion for new trial. In both instan ces, couns el found the a bsenc e of rev ersi ble er ro r. W e hav e rev iew ed th e en ti re record for any non- friv olo us g ro unds on w hic h an appeal of c ause number 153 coul d arg uabl y be founded. See Penson v. Ohi o, 488 U .S. 75, 1 09 S. Ct . 346 , 102 L.E d.2d 300 ( 1988) ; St a ff o rd , 813 S. W .2d a t 511
. In c onduc ti ng our revi ew w e also con sidered the reco rd of cause num bers 049 a nd 0 50. W hile a certa in inc onsi ste ncy ex is ts in the appel lat e posi ti ons ass erted in caus e numbers 049 an d 050, w hic h rai se a m er it s arg ument, and t he And ers cl aim here, w e are notobl ig ated to ab ate and remand th is ca se for appo int ment of ne w appel lat e couns el. Al thoug h br iefed on the meri ts, the appeal s o f cause numbers 0 49 and 050 pres ent no points w it h arg uabl e mer it
. See Ande rs 386 U .S. at 74 4 ( a fri v olo us appeal i s o ne w it hout arg u a b le m e rit). W e, therefore, ag re e w it h c ounse l that the record in cause number 153 present s n o mer it or iou s is sue w hic h w oul d s uppor t an appeal
.C ounse l shal l, w it hin fiv e day s after this opi nio n i s h anded d ow n, s end app ell ant 11 a copy of the o pin ion and jud g ment, alo ng w it h not ific ati on of appel lan t’ s r ig ht t o fil e a pro se peti ti on for dis creti onar y rev iew
. See Tex . R . Ap p. P . 48. 4.

14 Con cl usi on In c ause numbers 049 and 050, w e find the t ri al cour t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on by not condu cti ng a he ar ing of appel lan t’ s motion s for new tr ial
. W e aff ir m the jud g ments of the trial court in cause n um bers 049 and 050 . In cause num ber 15 3, w e grant coun sel’s moti on to w it hdraw and aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. 11

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.