C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS MA RL ONPHI L L I PS, Ap pe lla nt,
v.
TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 09 -0 01 28 -C R

Appea l from the 175th J udicial District Court of B e xar County , T e xas (TC# 2007CR7456W )

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Marl on Phi lli ps a

pp e a ls a jud g me nt a dju dic a tin g g uil t and re vo kin g c omm

un ity supervision for the offe nse of possession of a controlled substanc e, four to two hundred g rams. Appellant orig inally

enter ed a ne g otiated plea of nolo contendre to the char g e and w as plac ed on
c omm un ity su pe rv isi on fo r a te rm of 5 y e ars . In F e br

ua ry 20 09 , th e State fi le d a

mot ion to revoke community

supervision and a djudicate guilt. Appellant admitted to violating one of the conditions of his probation, and the tria l court sentenc ed him to 7 y ear s’ incar cer ation and imposed a $1,500 fine. A ppellant filed a pr o s e no tic e of a pp e a l. Ap pe lla nt’ s a pp ointe d c ouns e l ha s f

ile d a br ie f i n w hic h s he c on c lud e s th a t th e a pp e a l is frivolous and without merit. Appellate counsel states that she has studied the re cord a nd has found no er

ror pr eser ved for appea l that could serve as g rounds for r ever sible err or. The br ief meets the re quirements of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.C t. 1396, 18 L .Ed.2d 493, reh. denie d , 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.C t. 2094, 18 L .Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by prese nting a

profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord, and de monstrating why , in effe ct, there are no arguable grounds to beA c op y of c ouns e l’ s b ri e f h a s b e e n d e liv e re d to Ap pe lla nt, inf or min g him of his ri g ht t o 1 file a br ief pr o s e . Appellant has not done so. -2- advanc ed. Se e Hi

gh v . S tate , 5 73 S.W. 2d

80 7 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ). Ap pe lla te c ouns e l, 1 howeve r, pre sents two proposed issues in the brie f. In I ssue One, c ounsel proposes a potential argument exis ts pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s re cent de cision in Arizona v. Gant , --- U.S. ---, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L .Ed.2d 485 (2009). Appellant wa s orig inally

char g ed with possession of a c ontrolled substance in Aug ust of 20 07 . App e lla

nt e nte re d into a

ple a a g re e me nt, a c c or din g to whic h h e e nte re d a ple a of no lo contendr e plea

to the char g e in exchang e for defe rre d adjudication and c ommunity supervision. In April and Nove mber of 2008, the Be x ar County Supervision and Corre ctions Depa rtment
re po rt e d App e lla

nt h a d f a ile d to c omp ly

wi th s e ve ra l of

the c on dit ion s o f h is c omm un ity
su pe rv isi on , in c lud ingfa ili ngto m e e t w ithhis pr ob a tio n o ff ic e r. Th e State fi le d it s mo tio n to adjudicate g uilt and revoke community supervision based on the violations. Appellant wa s arr ested on January 19, 2009, following a tra ffic stop. When the patrol office r stepped a

way from Appe llant’s vehicle to ve rify Appellant’s identific ation, Appellant jumped out of the ca

r and star ted running . Once Appellant wa s appre hended, the office r plac ed him under ar

rest. Af ter Appe llant was in custody , the offic er se arc hed the ve hicle and loc ated a handgun. Subsequently , the State amende d its mot ion to adjudicate guilt to i nclude two additional probation violations; evadingarr est and possession of a firea rm. Counsel points out what is arguable that the ha ndg un was discove red inc ident to an illeg al
sear ch of A

ppellant’s vehic le ac cordingto the Ga nt decision. See G ant , - -- U. S. at - -- , 1 29 S.Ct
.-3-

at 17 19 (h old ingpo lic e are a uth or ize d to se arc h v e hic le pa sse ng e r c omp artme nt i nc ide nt t o a rr e st only when, “ the ar

restee is unsecure d and within rea chingdistance of the passeng er c ompartment at the time of the se arc h,” or “ when it is rea sonable to believe evidenc e re levant to the cr ime of
arr est might be found in the vehic le.”) (interna l quotations omi tted). Howe ver, c ounsel also notes that the trial cour

t based its decision to adjudicate guilt based specif ically on the prior pr obation vio latio ns , a

nd ru le d a g a ins t th e State re g ard ingthe un lawf ul p os se ssi on

of a fi re arm . B e c a

us e the cour t did not consider the we apon in its decision to adjudicate guilt, the admissibi lity of the g un and the pr opriety

of the sea

rch w ere never

at issue. Ther efor e, the Ga nt decision wa s not implicated and I ssue One is ove rruled. Counsel asserts a se cond ar g uable point of e rror exis ts reg ardingAppellant’s r ece ipt of eff ective a ssistance of c ounsel at trial. Appe llate counse l argues Appe llant arguably rec eived ineffe ctive assistanc e whe n his trial counsel allowe d him to plead “true ” to the State’s a lleg ations of fa iling to re port to his parole off icer , as such a

plea wa s all that was re quired for the trial cour

t to adjudicate guilt. Se e Cole v . S tate , 578 S.W .2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). We reviewclaims of inef fec tive assistance of counse l under a two-prong ed test. F irst, an appellant must establish counsel’ s perf ormanc e fe ll below an objec tive standard of
rea sonablene ss under pre vailing pr ofessional norms. Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 69 3- 94 , 1 04 S.Ct . 2 05 2, 20 67 -6 8, 80 L .E d. 2d 67 4 ( 19 84 ); Ma lle t v . S

tate , 65 S.W .3d 59, 62-3 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Second, the a ppellant must establish that counsel’s def icient perf ormanc e pre

judiced the de fense
. Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 68 7, 10 4 S. Ct. a t 20 64 ; Jack son v. Sta te , 877 S.W .2d 768, 771 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). Prejudice is established by a showingthat there is a rea sonable proba bility that but for counse l’s unprofe ssional error s, the result of the-4-

proce edingwould have be en diffe rent. Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 69 4, 10 4 S. Ct. a t 20 68 ; Mallet , 65 S.W. 3d at 62 -3 . Are a so na

ble pr ob a bil ity is a pr ob a bil ity su ff ic ie nt t o und e rm ine c on fi de nc e in the outcome. When we re view a c laim of ineff ective a ssistance, we must indul g e a strongpresumption that counsel’s c onduct fa lls withi n the wide r ang e of r easona ble, profe ssional assistance, a nd the appellant must overc ome the pre sumption t hat the cha lleng ed conduc t can be considere d sound trial strategy . Jack

son , 877 S.W .3d at 771. The r ecor d on direc t appea l will gene rally be insufficient to show that counse l’s repr esentation was so defic ient as to meet the f irst prongof the Strickland analy sis because the re asonable ness of c ounsel’s choic es often involve f acts that do not appea

r in the appe llate re cord. Ry lan de r v . S tate , 101 S.W .3d 107, 110 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). As ther e is no rec ord of the ba sis for trial counse l’s decision to allow Appe llant to enter the plea, w e ca

nnot conclude that counsel’s pe rfor mance fell below a

n objective standa

rd of
rea sonablene ss. I ssue Two is over ruled. In addition to reviewingand over ruling appellate counsel’s pr oposed points of err or, we have c are fully

revie wed the e ntire re cord a nd ag ree that the appe al is wholly frivolous and wi tho ut m e ri t. F ur

the r, we fi nd

no thi ngin t

he re c or d th a t ma

y argua bly su pp or t th e a pp e a l. Ac c or din g ly , w e a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt. September 30, 2009 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ. (Do Not Publish)