NO. 07-07 -027 3-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 A JU NE 5, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ ROBERT O ANDRES MARTINE Z, APPE LLA NT V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 18 7 T H DI ST RI CTCOU RTOF B EXA R CO UNT Y; NO . 200 4CR 1620; HO NO RA BLE RAY MO ND AN GELI NI , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Rob erto A ndres Ma rt ine z , pl eaded no lo c on te nde re to the o ffense of Vi ola ti ng Sex Offender Reg is trati on. Pursuant to a ple a ag re ement, the t ri al cour t pl aced the a ppel lan t on deferred adj udi cat ion co mmunity su per v is ion for a per iod of two years a nd a fine of $1,200. The St ate subs eq uentl y f il ed a moti on toEnt er

Adj udi cat ion of Gui ltand Revoke Communi ty

Super v is ion
. W hen adv is ed of the all eg ati ons ag ain st him, appel lan t ini ti all y pl eaded “ not t ru e” to all al leg ati ons. At a su bseq uent hear ing , app ell ant e ntered a plea of “true” to se v eral of

the allegatio ns. As a result of his plea of

true, th e trial court2

ass ess ed puni shmentof confine ment in the Tex as Dep artment of C ri minal Ju sti ce- Stat e J ai l D i v i s i on for

a p er i od o f two y ea rs . W e affi r m. 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.Ed. 2d 498 (1 967)
. In s uppor t of hi s mot ion to w it hdraw , c ounse l 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 record reflects n o rev ersi ble er ro r upon w hic h an appeal ca n be predi cat ed. Id. at 74 4- 45. In compl ian ce w it h Hi g h v . Stat e, 57 3 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 , t here 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 th at he has prov ide d appell ant a co py 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 ate, 813 S .W .2 d 5 0 3, 51 0 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1991)
. Th e c o u rthasal so adv is ed appe ll ant o f his r ig ht t o fil e a pro se re spons e. Appel lan t hasnot filed a respon se. By his And ers b rief , coun sel raises groun ds tha t could possibly support an app eal, but c oncl udes the a ppeal i s fr ivolo us. W e have rev iewed th ese g ro unds and m a d e an inde pend en t rev i ew

o f t he e nt i re rec ord tod et er mi ne w he th er t he re are an y

a rg ua ble g ro unds w hic h mi g ht s uppor t an appeal
. See Pens on 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 arguab le groun ds an d agree w ith cou nsel tha t the app eal is f rivolou s.C ounse l shal l, w it hin f ive day s after the opini on is handed dow n, s end hi s c li ent 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 pr o s e peti ti on for dis creti onar y rev iew
. See Tex . R . Ap p. P . 48. 4.

3 Accordin gly , coun sel’s mot ion to w ithdra w is hereby g rante d and t he trial cou rt’s 1 jud g ment i s a ff ir med.
Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not p ubl is h.