Opinion filed Sep tember 1 0, 2009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### No. 1 1- 09 -0 00 93 -CR

____ ____ __ WAL TER

VILL AS AN A, Ap pellant V. STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the Cr im inal Dis tric t Court N o. 4

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1082826D

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Th e tr ia l c ourt

c on vic te d Wal te r Vi lla sa

na , up on his ple a of g uil ty , of a g g ra vate d a ssa ult wi th

a fi re arm . App e lla

nt a lso e nte re d a

ple a of tr ue to t he e nh anc e me nt a lle g a tio n. A p le a ba rg a in

a g re e me nt w a s n ot r e a c he d. Th e tr ia l c ourt a sse sse d h is punis hme nt a t c on fi ne me nt fo r se ve n y e a rs
. We d ism iss

. Appellant’s c ourt-appointed c ounsel has filed a motion to wit hdr a

w
. T h e mo ti o n

is s u p p o r te d by a br ie f in w hic h c ouns e l pr of e ssi on a lly and c on sc ie nti ou sly

e xami ne s th e re c or d a

nd a pp lic a ble law a nd state s th a t he ha s c on c lud e d th a t th e a pp e a l is fr ivo lou s. Counsel presents one arguable issue in his brief. Counsel que stions whether the punishment assessed is c ruel and unusual. As counsel notes, the sentenc e assessed falls within t h e r an ge of punishment for a pe rson convicte d of a se cond deg ree felony o ff en s e with one prior f

elony2

conviction. T EX
. P EN A L C ODE ANN . § § 1 2

. 4 2 , 2 2

. 0 2 (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). A pena lty assessed wi thi n th e ra

ng e of punis hme nt e sta

bli sh e d b y

the le g isl a tur e wi ll not be dis tur be d o n a pp e a l. J ac k so n v . S tat e , 6 80 S.W. 2d

80 9, 81 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 84 ); Brad fie ld v . S tate , 42 S.W .3d 350, 354 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2001, pet. r ef’ d). The a rg uable issue is over

ruled. Couns e l ha s p ro vid e d a

pp e lla nt wi th a c op y of

the br ie f a

nd a dv ise d a pp e lla nt o f h is r ig ht t o revie w the re cord a

nd file a response to c ounsel’s brief. A response has bee n filed. Court-appointed counsel h as complied with the re quirements of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 3 86 U. S. 7 38 (1 96 7) ; In re Schulman , 2 52 S.W. 3d

40 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ); Sta ffo rd v . S tat e , 8 13 S.W. 2d

50 3 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ); Hi

gh v . S tat e , 573 S.W. 2d 80 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tat e , 516 S.W .2d 684 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 ); Ga ino us v . S tat e , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v

. Sta te , 161 S.W .3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.)

. I n his response, a

ppellant challeng es the e ffe ctiveness of his trial counsel and r aises conc erns that, b e c a us e he wa s on pai n med ic a tio n af te r sur g e ry on his e lbo w, he wa s not in his “ ri g ht f ra me
o f m i n d

. ” A p p e l l an tf

u rt h e r s t a t e s t h a t , b e c a

u s e o f t h e p a i nm e d i c a t i o n , h i s p l e a s w e r e i n v o l u n t a r y. T h e Tex as Court of Criminal Appea ls stated in Bl e ds oe v . S tat e , 1 7 8 S. W. 3 d

8 2 4 , 8 2 6

- 2 7 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2005), that the cour t of appea ls is to r eview appellant’ s pro se c laims and examine the

rec ord in order

to determine w hether

the re cord r efle cts no reve rsible er ror a nd, there fore , the appe al should be dismissed or wheth er ar guable g rounds exist and, ther efor e, new counsel should be appointed. We ha

ve complied with the re quirements in Bledsoe and have found no re versible e rror
. Following the procedure s outlined in An de rs , we have indepe ndently revie wed the r ecor d,

and we a g re e that th e a

pp e a l is wi tho ut m e ri t. We no te that c ouns e l ha s the re sp on sib ili ty to a dv ise

a pp e lla nt t hat he may

fi le a pe tit ion fo r d isc re tio na

ry re vie w b y

the Te xas C ourt

of Cr imi na l App e a ls. Ex parte Owe ns , 206 S.W .3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). L ikewise, this c ourt advises a ppellant that he may

fi l e a petition for discretionar y revie w pursuant to T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 66. Blac k v . S tat e , 217 S.W .3d 687 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.)

. The motion to withdraw is g rante d, and the a ppeal is dismissed.
September 10, 2009 PER C URI AM Do not publish. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.