See T EX . P E N A L C O D E A NN . § 3 8

. 0 4 (a), (b)(1) ( V ernon 2 0 0 3 ). 1
A n ind ivid u a l ad

ju d g e d gu ilt y o f a sta te ja il felo n y sh a ll b e p u n ish e d fo r a third d e g re e felo n y if it is 2 shown o n t he t ri al of t he o f f ense t hat t he i nd i vi d ual has p revi o usl y be en f i nal l y co nvi ct ed of any f el o ny f o r whi ch t he j udgment cont ai ns an af f i r mat i ve f

i ndi ng un der s ect i on 3(g ) ( a) ( 2), ar t i cl e 42. 12 of t he T exa s Co de of

Cri mi nal P ro c e d u re . See T EX . P E N A L C O D E A NN . § 12

. 3 5 (c)( 2 )( B ) ( V ernon S up p . 20 0 8 ).



## NO. 12–08-00058-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

DEV ON CONSTANTINE HENRY , § APPEAL F ROM THE 7TH APPELLANT V . § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATE OF TEX AS, APP ELL EE § SMI TH CO UN TY, T EXAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM De v o n Co n s ta

n ti n e H e nr

y a p p e a ls h is c o nv ic ti o n f

o r e v a d in g ar

r e s t o r d e te n tion with a vehicle. Appellant’s counse l filed a brie f in compliance with Anders v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct . 1396, 18 L . Ed. 2d 493 (1967) a nd Ga ino us v. Sta te , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 69 ). Ap pe lla

nt a lso fi le d a

brie f p ro se . We dis mis s App e lla nt’ s a pp e a l.

B ACKG ROUND Appellant wa s char g ed by indictment with the offe nse of e vadingarr est or dete ntion with a vehicle, a state j ail felony

. The indi ctment also included a felony enhanc ement paragraph, a nd the 1 judgme nt of that conviction contained an aff irmative finding under section 3(g )(a )(2) , article 42.12 of the Te x as Code of Criminal P roce dure. On November 28, 2007, Appellant entered an open plea 2See T EX . P E N A L C O D E A NN . § 1 2 .45 (a) (V ern o n 2 0 0 3 ). T he una d jud i ca t ed o f

f en se is t rial co urt cau se 3
n u mber 007- 0938- 07.

An i n di v i du al a dj u dg ed g u i l t y of a t h i r d de g r ee f

el on y s h al l be pu n i s h ed by i mpr i s on men t f or a n y t er m of 4
n o t m o re tha n ten ye a rs o r le ss th a n two ye a rs a n d , i n a d d iti o n , a fine no t t o e x c e e d $ 1 0 ,0 0 0

. See T EX . P E N A L C ODE A NN . § 12

. 3 4 (V ernon 2 0 0 3 ). 2 of guilty to the offe nse cha

rg ed in the indictment, and a lso pleaded “true” to the fe lony enhanc ement para g raph. A

ppellant and his counse l signe d an agree d punishment recommendation, an acknow ledg ment of admonishments, a waiver of jury trial, an agr eeme nt to stipul ate testimony , and
a wr itten stipul ation of evide nce in whic h Appellant swore that such stipulation constitut ed the evidenc e in the ca se. F urther, A ppellant ac knowled ged t hat he wa s guilty of an una djudicated offe nse, tampering w ith evidence

. Howeve r, Appe llant did not waive his rig ht to appeal. 3 A f te r a p un is h me n t h e ar in g , th e tria l c o urt a d ju d g e d Ap p e ll an t gu il ty o f th e o f f e nse as se t fo rt h in the ind ic tme nt, fo un d the e nh anc e me nt para g ra ph to be “ tr

ue ,” c on sid e re d his guil ty ple a to the unadjudicated offe nse, and a ssessed his punishment at s even year s of imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. This appea l followed. 4

A NAL YS I S P URS UANT T O A N D ER S V . C A L IFO R N

IA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in complianc e with Anders and Ga ino us , stating that he has dil ig e ntl y re vie we d th e a

pp e llate re c or d a

nd is of the op ini on that th e re c or d r e fl e c ts n o r e ve rs ibl e erro r an d t h at there is no error upon which an a

ppeal c an be pr edicated. Fr om our revie w of Ap p e l l an t ’ s b r i e f

, i ti s a p p ar e n tth ath i s c o un s e l i s w e l l a c qu a i n t e d w i th th e f

a c t s i nth i s c a s e . In compliance with Anders , Ga ino us , and Hig h v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s brief pre sents a chr onologic al summation of the proce dural history of the c ase, a

nd further states that counse l is unable to raise a ny arguable issues for

appea l. Appellant’s pr o se brief

raises f ive issues. He a

rgu e s th a t h is trial counsel re ndere d ineffe ctive
a s s i s t an c e b y:

1

. failing to m a k e ti m e ly an d p ro p e r o b je c tio n s to p re se rv e a n y e rr o r fo r a p p e a l; 2

. failing to p re se rv e A p p e llan t’s F ift h a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t righ ts in

conne ct i on wi t h t he vi deot ape of t he cha r ged of

f ens e;3 3. f

ai l i n g t o c h al l en g e t h e u n adj u di ca t ed of f en s e t h at t h e t r i al c ourt c o ns i der ed f or p u n ish m e n t; 4. f

ai l i n g t o f

i l e an y m ot i on s f

or di s cov er y r eg ar di n g t h e r ea s on abl en es s of t h e s t op or t he m i t i gat i ng ci rcum st ances i n hi s p revi o us co nvi ct i o n; 5. i nduci ng A pp el l ant t o pl ead g ui l t y by s ug ges t i ng t hat he woul d re cei ve a ben ch t r i al a n d p ro b a tio n up o n sign ing the p le a d o c u m e n ts a n d , b e c a u se he w a n te d to go to t r i al , mak i n g h i s g u i l t y pl ea i n v ol u n t ar y w i t h ou t a n u n der s t an di n g of t h e n at u r e of t he cha r ge and t he cons equen ces of a pl ea. We have r eviewe d the re cord f or re versible e rror

and have found none.

C ONCL US I ON As requir ed, Appe llant’s counsel ha s moved for le ave to withdra w. See In re Schu lm an , 252 S.W. 3d 40 3, 40 7 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ) ( or ig . p ro c e e din g ); Sta ff ord v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 503, 511 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ). We a re in agreement wi th A

pp e lla nt’ s c ouns e l th at th e a

pp e a l is wh oll y f r i v o l o u s an d

h i s m o t i o nf

o r l e av e t o w i th dr awi s h e r e b y granted

. See In re Schu lm an , 252 S.W .3d at 408-09. Counsel has a duty

to, within five day s of t he date of t his opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judg ment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a pe tition for discretionar y revie w. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 48.4; In re Schu lm an , 252 S.W .3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek further revie w of this case by

the Texas Court of Criminal A ppeals, he must either r etain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary revie w or he must file a pr o se petition for discr etionary revie w. See In re Schu lm an , 252 S.W .3d at 408 n22. Any petition for discretionary revie w m ust be filed within thirty day s from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehe aringthat was
overr uled by this court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2. Any petition for discre tionary

revie w must be filed wi th t his c ourt , a ft e r whic h it

wi ll b e fo rw ard e d to the Te xas C ourt of Cr imi na l A

pp e a ls a lon gwi th the rest of the filings in this case

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.3. Any petition for discre tionary revie w should comply

with the require ments of Rule 68.4 of t he Tex as Rules of Appe llate Proce dure. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68 .4 ; In re Schu lm an , 242 S.W .3d at 408 n.22. We dis miss Ap pe lla

nt’ s a pp e a l. Opinion delivere d April 30, 2009. Pane l co ns is t ed of

Wor t hen , C. J. , Gri

f f i t h, J. , an d Hoyl e, J. (DO N OT PUBL I SH)