### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 564 -CR

M ar k An th onyHol lan d , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 62,4 84 , HO NORAB LE F ANCY H . JEZ EK , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A j ur y found a pp e lla nt guil ty of po sse ssi ngmor e tha

n f our g ra ms o f c oc a ine wi th intent to deliver. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112 (West 2003). The jury assessed punis hme nt, e nh anc e d b y tw o p re vio us fe lony

c on vic tio ns , at f

or ty y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt. The primar

y issue at t rial was the propriety of t he sea rch that resulted in the seizure of the c on t raband. Both at a pre trial suppression hea ring and at tria l, Trooper

Abra ham Gonzales testified that the ca

r being d ri v en b y ap pellant was stopped f or spee ding. When he approa ched appellant’ s car

on foot, Gonzales smelled unburne d marihuana
. Gonzales testified that he a sked for and wa s g iven appe llant’s consent to sea rch the vehicle. B efor e conduc ting the se arc h, Gonzales frisked a ppellant for sa fety

and discovere d the coca ine. A quantity of marihuana was found inside the ca r.2 Appellant also testified at both the hear ing a nd the trial. Appe llant denied that he w as speeding . He also testified t hat, after he stopped his car , the officer approac hed him with his service
wea pon draw n. Appellant denie d g iving Gonzales c onsent to sear ch.

The trial court overr

uled t he mot ion to suppress and made wr itten findings of fac t that
are consistent with the officer’ s testimony . At trial, the cour t’s jury char g e included a

n article 38.23 instruction. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc
. Ann. art. 38.23(a) (West 2005). The jury was told that it was not to consider the evidenc e seiz ed by the officer if it had a rea sonable doubt as t o whether appellant was spee ding, the office r sm elled marihuana, or appellant consented to the s ear ch. By convicting
a pp e lla nt, the jur y imp lic itl y

fo un d a g a ins t hi m on

the se iss ue s. A p p e l l an t ’ s c o u rt - a

p p o i n t e d a t t o r n e y h a s f i l e d a m o t i o nt o w i t h dr aw s u

p p o rt e d b y a brief c oncluding that the appe al is frivolous and without merit. The brief mee ts the require ments of A n d e r s v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by prese nting a

profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord demonstrating why there are no arguable gr ounds to be advance d. Se e als o Pe ns on v . O hio , 4 88 U. S. 75 (1 98 8) ; Hi

gh v . S tate , 57 3 S.W. 2d 80 7 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur rie v . S tate , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex . Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 ); J ac k so n v . S tate , 4 85 S.W. 2d

55 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ); G a inous
v . S tat e , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 196 9 ). After rec eiving a copy

of counse l’s brief a

nd examining the appe llate re cord, a ppellant submitted a written re sponse. We h a v e r e v ie w e d

th e r e c o r d , c o u n s e l’ s b r ie f , an d a p p e ll an t’ s w r itte nr e s p o n s e . We ag ree with counsel that the appea l is frivolous and without mer it. We f ind nothing in the rec ord that might ar g uably

support the appe al. Se e Bl edso e v . S tate , 1 78 S.W. 3d

82 4, 82 6- 27 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2005). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is g rante d.3 The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: January

29, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh