See T EX

. P EN AL C OD E A NN

. § 49. 04 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). 1 

# NUM BER 13-06- 0053 5-CR



# COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G

REB ECC A

JE A N CA NN , A pp ellan t,

v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e C ou nt y C ou rt atL aw o f K leb erg Co un ty , T exas .


# ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z A j ur y found appel lan t, Reb ecc a Jean Cann, g uil ty of the mis demeanor

of fense of dr iv ing w hil e int ox ic ated. The tr ial cour t ass ess ed a sent ence of 180 day s’ co nfinement, 1


## suspe nde d the se nte nce, p laced a ppe llant on co mm unity supervisi on f or eighteen mon ths,See T EX

. C OD E C R IM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art

. 42

. 12 § 3 (Ve rno n S up p. 20 08 ). 2

S e e A n d e r

s v . C a lifo r

n ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 7 4 4 (1 9 6 7 ). 3

S e e i d

. 4

See I n r

e Schul m an , 252 S. W

. 3d 4 03, 407 n. 9 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 8) ( “ I n T exas, an A nd ers br i ef 5 ne ed no t sp ec i fi c al l y ad van c e ‘ ar g u a b l e ’ p o i nts o f err or i f co un s el fi nd s no ne , bu t i t m us t provi de rec ord r ef er ences t o t he f act s and pr ocedur al hi st or y and set out per t i nent l egal aut hor i t i es. ” ) ( ci t i ng H a w k in s v . S ta te , 1 1 2 S .W .3 d 3 4 0 , 3 4 3 -4 4 ( T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.)); S ta ffo rd v . S ta te , 813 S. W

. 2d 5 03, 510 n .3 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ).

H i g h v . S ta te , 57 3 S

. W

. 2d 80 7, 81 3 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. [ P an el O p.] 19 78 ). 6 

## 2 and impo sed a f ine of

$50 0.0 0 f ine an d cou rt costs. 2 

## Appel lan t’ s a ppel lat e c ounse l, co ncl udi ng that“ ther e ar e no g ro unds upon w hic h an appeal can be pr edi cat ed,” fil ed an And ers brief , in w hich he rev iew ed the m erits, or lack 3 

## ther eof, of the app eal

. W e aff ir m. I. D I S CUS S I ON 

## Pur suantto And er

s v . California , appel lan t’ s c our t- appoi nted appel lat e c ounse l has 4 

## filed a br ief w it h thi s C our t, sta ti ng thathi s r ev iew of the re cord y iel ded no g ro unds or er ro r upon w hic h an appeal can be pr edi cat ed. Al thoug h couns el’ s b ri ef does n ot ad v ance any arguable g roun ds of

error, it d o e s p resen t a prof ession al evaluation of the reco rd dem onst rating w hy the re are no a rg uab le groun ds to be advanced on ap pea l. 5 

## In c ompli ance w it h Hi

gh v . St ate , a p p e ll a n t ’s c o u n s e l h a s ca re f u ll y d is c u s s e d wh y, 6 

## under co ntr oll ing auth or it y , t her e ar e no er ro rs i n the tri al cour t’ s judg ment. Counsel has infor med thi s Cou rt that he has : (1 ) ex amined the re cord and found no arg uabl e g ro unds to ad v ance on appe al, ( 2) se rv ed a copy of t he br ief and couns el’ s moti on to w it hdr aw on app ellant , and (3) i nf orme d app ellant of her r ight to r eview the record and to f ile a pro seS ee A nd ers , 386 U

. S. at 744 ; S t aff ord , 8 1 3 S .W .2 d a t 5 1 0 n .3 ; see a l so I n r e Schulm an , 252 S. W

. 3d 7 a t 4 0 9 n .2 3 . T h e T e x a s C o u rt o f C rim i n a l A p p e a l s h a s h e l d th a t “th e p ro s e re s p o n s e n e e d n o t c o m p l y w i th t he rul es of ap pe l l ate pro c ed ure i n ord er t o be co ns i de red

. R athe r, t he res po ns e s ho ul d i de nti fy for t he co urt t hose i ssues whi ch t he i ndi gent appe l l ant bel i ev es t he co ur t shou l d con si der i n de ci di ng whet her t he ca se p re s e n t s an y m eri t ori ou s i s s ue s
. ” I n r e Schulm an , 252 S. W

. 3d a t 409 n. 23 ( quot i ng W i l s o n v . S ta te , 955 S

. W

. 2d 69 3, 69 6-9 7 (T ex
. A pp
. –W ac o 1 99 7, no pe t

. ))

.

See I n r e Schulm an , 252 S. W

. 3d a t 409

. 8

P e n s o n v . O h io , 488 U

. S. 75, 80 ( 1988 

## ). 9

W e n o te th a t th e K le b e r g C o u n ty C o u r t- a t- L a w h a s b e e n g r a n te d p e r m is s io n to u s e a n e le c tr o n ic 10
r e c o r d in g s ys te m in c r i m i n a l la w m a tt e r s , p u r s u a n t t o a n o r d e r d a te d J u n e 1 1 , 1 9 9 7 . W e h a v e d ilig e n tly r ev i ewed t he a udi ot ap es o f t he pr oceedi ngs i n t hi s m at t er
. Al t hough we un der st and t hat l i m i t ed r esour ces m ay hav e ne cessi t at ed t hi s ar r angem ent , we no t e t hat t he au di otap es ar e di f f i cul t t o un der st and, and m ay p re s e n t s p e c i a l c h a l l e n g e s to a n i n c a rc e ra te d d e fe n d a n t’ s a b i l i ty to re v i e w th e re c o rd

.

S e e B l e d s o e v . S ta te , 17 8 S

. W

. 3d 82 4, 82 6-2 8 ( T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 20 05 ) ( “A s stat ed ab ove , t he co urt 11 ofapp eal s i s not r equi r ed t o r ev i ew t he m er i t s of each cl ai m r ai sed i n an Ander s br i efor a pr

o se r esponse
.

. . . D ue t o t he na t ure of A nd ers br i ef s, by i ndi cat i ng i n t he o pi ni on t hat i t consi der ed t he i ssues r ai sed i n t he br i ef s and r ev i ewed t he r ecor d f or r ev er si bl e er r or but f ound none, t he co ur t of app eal s m et t he r equi r em ent o f T e x a s R u l e o f A p p e l l a te P ro c e d u re 4 7 .1 .”); S t aff ord , 813 S. W

. 2d a t 509

. S ee A nd ers , 386 U

. S. at 744 ; see al so I n re Schulm an , 252 S. W

. 3d a t 408 n. 17 ( ci t i ng Jef f er y v. 12 S ta te , 903 S. W

. 2d 776, 779

- 80 ( T ex. App. –D al l as 19 95, no pet

. ) ( not i ng t hat “ [ i ] fan at t or ney bel i ev es t he appea l i s f r i v ol ous, he m ust wi t hdr aw f r om r epr esent i ng t he a ppel l ant

. T o wi t hdr aw f r om r epr esent at i on, t he appoi nt ed a t t or ney m ust f i l e a m ot i on t o wi t hdr aw accom pani ed b y a br i ef showi ng t he appel l at e cour t t hat t he appea l i s f r i v ol ous. ” ) ( ci t at i ons o m i tte d ))

. 

## 3 re spons e. Ap pel lan t has fil ed a pr o s e r espon se.

7 8



## II. I NDEPE NDENT 

## R EVI EW 

## Upo n r ecei v ing an And ers br ief, w e mustco nducta full ex aminat ion of all the pr oceed ing s t o det er mine w hether the cas e i s w hol ly

fri v olo us. W e hav e r ev iew ed th e

9 

## enti re record, counsel ’s bri ef, and appell ant’ s pro se br ief, an d hav e found not hin g that 10



## w ould arguably supp ort an a ppe al. Ac cordin g ly , w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. 11 

## III
. M OT I ON TO 

## W IT H D R AW 

## In ac cor dance w it h And ers , app ell ant’ s a ttor ney has as ked thi s C our

t for per mis si on t o wit h d ra w a s co u n s e l fo r ap p e ll a n t

. W e gr a n t c o u n s e l’ s m o t io n t o wit h d ra w. W it h in f ive 12See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4 8 .4 ; see a l so I n r e Schulm an , 2 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 4 1 2 n .3 5 ; Ex part e O w ens , 206 13 S .W .3 d 6 7 0 , 6 7 3 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). N o s u b s ti tu te c o u n s e l w i l l b e a p p o i n te d

. S h o u l d a p p e l l a n t w i s h to s e e k fu rth e r re v i e w o f th i s c a s e b y th e T e x a s C o u rt o f C rim i n a l A p p e a l s , h e m u s t e i th e r re ta i n a n a tto rn e y to f i l e a pet i t i on f or di scr et i onar y r ev i ew or f i l e a pr o se peti t i on fo r d i s c ret i onar y r ev i ew. Any pet i t i on f or di scr et i onar y r ev i ew m ust be f i l ed wi t hi n t hi r t y day s f r om t he d at e of ei t her t hi s opi ni on or t he l ast t i m el y m ot i on fo r re h e a rin g th a t w a s o v e rr u l e d b y th i s C o u rt. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68. 2. Any pet i t i on f or di scr et i onar y r ev i ew m u s t b e fi l e d w i th th i s C o u rt, a fte r w h i c h i t w i l l b e fo rw a rd e d to th e T e x a s C o u rt o f C rim i n a l A p p e a l s
. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 6 8 .3 ; 6 8 .7

. A n y p e ti ti o n fo r d i s c re ti o n a ry re v i e w s h o u l d c o m p l y w i th th e re q u i re m e n ts o f R u l e 6 8 .4 o f th e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a te P ro c e d u re
. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68. 4. 

## 4 day s o f the dat e of thi s C our t’ s o pin ion , c ounse l is or der ed to se nd a copy of the o pin ion and j u d g me n t t o a p p e l l a n t a n d t o a d v i s e a p p e l l a n t o f h i s r i g h t t o fi l e a p e t i t ion for d is c re t io n a ry r e vie w. 13



## LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX



## . R. A PP



## . P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 26t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.