NO. 07-08 -043 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 JU NE 29, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ REGANEL D JOHNSON, APPEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 24 2 ND DI ST RI CTCOU RTOF HA L E CO UNT Y; NO . B1 7168- 0703; HO NO RA BLE E D SELF , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel la nt, Reg anel d J ohnso n, en tered a g uil ty pl ea to the offense of poss ess ion w ith inten t to deliver a cont rolled subst ance , cocain e, in an amo untof four grams or mo re but l essthan 200 gra m s. Ap pel lan t was sent enced to ten years w it h the per iod of in c a rc e ra t io n su s p e n d e d a n d h e wa s p la c e d o n co m m u n it y su p e rvi s io n fo r a p e ri o d o f f ive y ears. The St ate s ubseq uentl y fil ed a moti on to rev oke appel lan t’ s c ommunity su per v is ion all eg ing thatappel lan t had fa ile d t o c omplet e the co urt ordered c ommunity co rrect ion s prog ra m. A ppel lan t pleaded “not tr ue” to the a ll eg ati on and, after a c ontes ted h ear ing , t he2

tr ial co urt found that the all eg ati on was tr ue. The tr ial co ur t rev oked appel lan t’ s c ommunity super v is ion and ass ess ed hi s p uni shmentat confine ment in the Insti tuti onal Div is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce for a per iod of ten years. I t is from thi s j udg ment tha t app ellantapp eals. 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 4 98 ( 1967) ; I n re Sc hul man , 252 S.W .3d 4 03 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2008)
. In s uppor t of hi s moti on to w it hdraw , couns el cer ti fies that he has d il ig entl y

rev iewed th e record, an d i n hi s o pin ion , t he record reflect s n o re v ersi ble er ro r upon w hic h an appeal can be predi cat ed. Anders, 386 U. S. a t 744 -4 5. In compl ian ce w it h H ig h v . St ate, 573 S. W .2d 8 07, 8 13 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1978) , c ounse l has cand idly discusse d w hy, und er the cont rolling aut horities, the re is no error in the trial court’s jud g ment. Addi ti onal ly , c ounse l has cer ti fied th at he has prov ide d appel lan t a copy of the And ers brief

a nd mo tion to w ithdra w a nd app ropriate ly

a dvised a ppe llant of

h is right to f ile a pro serespon se in thi s matter
. Stafford v . Stat e, 813 S. W .2d 5 03, 5 10 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1991)
. The co u rth a s a lso adv is ed appe ll ant o f his r ig ht t o fil e 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 possibly support an app eal, but c oncl udes the a ppeal i s f rivo lou s. W e hav e rev iewed th ese g ro unds and made an inde pen den t rev iew

of the e n t ir e record to de term ine w het her the re are any arg uab le g ro unds w hic h mi g ht s uppor t an appeal
. 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 a rg uab le groun ds an d agree w ith cou nsel th at th e ap pea l is f rivolou s.C ounse l shal l, w it hin fiv e days a fter t hisopi nio n i s h anded d ow n, s end hi s c li ent 1 a c opy of the opi nio n 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 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.