### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

NO. 03-00-00596-CR
Harv ey Gr anado, Appel lant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 390T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. 0996464, HONORABLE JULIE H. KO CUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING

A jury fou nd ap pellant Har vey Gra nado guilt y of po sses sing less t han o ne gr am o f her oin. S ee Tex. Hea lth &

Safety Code Ann . § 481.115 (West Supp. 2001). The j ury as sessed pu n i sh men t, enhanc ed by pr eviou s felony co nvictio ns, a t impriso nment for ten ye ars and a $7000 f

in e. SeeTex . Pen . Code A

nn . § 12.41 (a)(2) (W

est Sup p. 2001 ). Appellant’s co ur t - ap po int ed at t o rne y filed a b r ief c o nc lud ing t ha t t he ap pe al is fri volous and w itho ut merit . T he br i ef mee ts th e re qui rem en ts of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967 ), by advanc ing a co nt ent ion t hat mightargua bl y supp ort the app eal
. See also Pens on v. Ohio , 488 U.S . 75 (19 88) ; High v. State , 57 3 S. W.2d 807 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 78) ; Curr ie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim . App. 19 74) ; Jacks on v. State , 485 S.W .2d 553 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1972 );2

Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 196 9) . Aft er examining the re co rd , a ppe llant also filed a pr o se br ief.

In hi s pro se bri ef

, appella nt contends his righ

ts were vi olated when

the Stat e was permi tt ed to am en d the i nd i ctm en t on t he da y tr ial began. The i

ndi ctmen t returne d by

the g rand j ury al le ged that appell

ant possessed one gram

or more but le ss than

fo ur gr ams o f he r o in. I mmed iat ely be f ore jury selection b egan, the State announced that it was goi

ng to pro ceed on the lesser i ncl uded offense of p osse ssi

on of l ess than one g ram . Such an

al terat ion of

the chargi

ng i nstrume nt is not an amendment t o w hich art icles 28 .1 0 and 28. 11, cite d by appe l l an t, appl y . Eastep v. State , 941 S.W.2d 130, 134 -35 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 97) ; see Tex . Code Cri

m . Proc. A

nn . arts. 28 .10, .11 (We st 1989 ). A pp el l an t’s f i rs t pro se i ss ue i s wi th out m eri t. Appellant’s second contention i s that hi s trial

coun se l wa s i n ef f ec ti v e f or f ai l i n g to obje ct to the

am en dm en t of the in dictment, and that his atto rney on a ppe al was ineffect ive for faili ng to rais e the am

endm ent is sue and the i

nef fecti ve ass is tance is sue. As we

ha ve ex pl ai ne d, how ev er, t he St at e’s a bando nment of t he greater o ff ense wa s not an obj ectionab le am endm ent. No in eff ectiveness of cou n se l , a t tri al or on appe al , i s s

h own . We a

l so n ote th at t rial co unse l had no
rea son to object to the St ate’s decision, si nc e it was ent irely to app ellant’ s bene fit. H ad a ppe llant been tried and conv

icted for the origin

al off ense, h e woul d hav e fac ed a m i ni m um term of impriso nment of twenty-f iv e y ears and a m

axi mum term of l if e. Tex. Pen. Code An

n. § 12.42(d) (We st Supp . 2001)
.3 Having reviewed the record, we agree that t he appeal i s f ri v ol ous an d w i th out m eri t. The j udgme

nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice Be f ore C hi ef Ju sti ceA bou ss i e, J us ti ce s Y ea

ke l an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: October 4, 2001 Do No t Publis

h