NO. 07-05 -036 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 A JU NE 5, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ CRUZ T IJERINA, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 36 4 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO . 200 4- 406077; H ON ORABLE BRAD LEY U ND ERW OOD , 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 C ru zTij er ina fil ed a noti ce of appeal foll owing h is co nv icti on for poss e s s i o n o f a c o n t ro l l e d s u b s t a n c e , c o c a i n e , a n d t h e a c c o mp a n y i n g s e n t e n c e of inc arcerati on. W e ag re e w it h appoi nted couns el’ s conc lus ion that the record fail s t o s how any mer it or iou s i ss ue w hic h woul d suppo rt the a ppeal and aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment. Appel lan t, while r e p re sent ed by co unsel , ent ered an open pl ea of g uil ty to the charg ed offense. Appel lan t waiv ed hi s r ig ht t o a jur y tr ial and, foll ow ing hear ing , t he tr ial2

cour t reje cte d appel lan t’ s req uestto be pl aced on c ommunity su per v is ion and ass ess ed puni shmentat fiv e y ears c onfinement. Cou nsel for

appell ant has f il ed a moti on to w it hdraw and a br ief i n s uppor

t pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U .S. 738, 744- 45 ( 1967) . The br ief disc uss es the fact ual and proce dura l history

of the case and ev iden ce prese nte d. In con fo rm it y w ith cou nsel’s obl ig ati on to su ppor

t t he appe al to t he bes t of hi s a bil ity , Jo h n s o n v. Sta te , 8 85 S. W .2d 641, 645 (T e x.A p p .–W aco 1994, pet. re f’d) , t he br ief di sc uss es four pot enti al is sues on appeal and ex pla ins w hy they do n ot s how

rev ersi ble er ro r. C ounse l thus conc lud es the appeal i s fr ivolo us. See H ighv. Sta te , 573 S.W .2d 807 , 813 (Tex.Crim.App . 197 8). Cou nsel has cert ified thata c opy of the Anders

b ri e f a n d m o t io n t o wit h d ra w h a ve been s er v ed on appel lan t, and t hat c ounse l has adv is ed appel lan t of hi s r ig ht t o rev iew the re cord and file a pr

o s e re spons e. Johns on , 885 S.W .2d at 645 . By letter, th is court also noti fied appe ll ant o f his r ig ht t o s ubmita respon se to t he Anders br ief and motio n to w it hdraw fil ed by hi s c ounse l. Ap pel lan t h a s f ile d a l etter w it h thi s c our

t i n w hic h he in d i c a t e s h e h a s b e e n u n s u c c e s s fu l i n fi n d i n g a n y g ro u n d s t o p ro c e e d w i t h a re s p o nse, and as ks us to re v iew

the re cord. In con formity w ith the stand ards set o ut by th e United S tate s S upre me Court, w e w ill n o t r ule on t he moti on to w it hdraw unti l w e hav e i ndependen tl y ex amined the re cord. Nichol s v . St ate , 954 S.W .2d 83, 86 (Tex.App .-San Anto nio 19 97, no pe t.)

. I f t h is co urt deter mines the appeal has mer it , we w il l re mand it to the tr ial 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).In g ran ti n g counsel ’s moti on to w it hdraw , howev er , we remind couns el of the 1 “e ducat ion al” duty

to inform appel lan t of hi s r ig ht t o fil e a pr o s e pet ition for discretion ary re v iew in the Cou rt of Cr imi nal Appea ls

. Ex par te O wens , 206 S.W .3d 6 70 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 200 6). 3 Our rev iew

of co unse l's brief , includin g his discussion of pote ntial ap pellat e issues, and the re cord conv inc es us that appel lat e couns el condu cte d a thoroug h re v iew of the re cord. W e al so hav e i ndependen tl y ex amined the enti re record i n the ca se to de ter mine w hether there are any

non- frivolo us g ro unds w hic h mig ht s uppor t t he appe al. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U .S. 75 ( 1988) ; Staf for d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d at 511. W e ha v e foun d no such groun ds. Af

ter rev iew ing the record be fore us, we agree wi th cou nsel th a tt h e a p pea l is frivolo us. See B led

soe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 5). Acc ordin g ly , couns el’ s motion to w it hdraw is g ra nted and w e aff ir m the jud g ment

1 of the tr ial co urt.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.