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

NO. 03-04-00548- CR

De loe s Oc kle be r r y, Jr ., App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL CO UNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 56109 , HO NORAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Deloes Ocklebe rry , J r., plea ded guilty to burg lary

of a ha bitation. See T e x. Pe n. Cod e Ann. § 3 0. 02 (We st 2003 ). Th e c ourt a dju dg e d h im guil ty

and a sse sse d p un ish me nt, enhanc ed by

a pre vious felony

conviction, at imprisonment for life and a $2500 f ine. Oc kle be rr y ’s c ourt -a

pp oin te d atto rn e y

fi le d a br ie f c on c lud ingtha

t th e a pp e a l is frivolous and without mer it. The brief meets the re quirements of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by

demonstrating th at t h e o n l y arguable c ontentions that might support the appe al ar e ultimately

without merit. Se e als o Pe ns on v . O hio , 488 U. S. 7 5 ( 19 88 ); Hi gh v . S tate , 573 S.W .2d 80 7 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 51 6 S.W. 2d 68 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 ); Jack son v.2

Sta te , 48 5 S.W. 2d 55 3 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ); Ga ino us v . S tate , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). As wa s h is r ig ht, Oc kle be rr y fi le d a pr o s e br ie f. Hi s p ri mary c omp la int

is that hi s tr ia l atto rn e y

did no t pr ov ide e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e . O c kle be rr

y a sse rt s th a t c ouns e l f

a ile d to inv e sti g a te the fa c ts o f t

he c a se and

fai led to p ro du c e e vid e nc e , in c lud ingte sti mony by fa mil y members a

nd frie n ds, reg ardingOcklebe rry ’s mental illness. He a lso urg es that counse l was ineffe ctive for

having urg ed him to p l ea d gu i l t y knowing that he wa s mentally ill and under the influence of medication.

The re cord c ontains a copy of the pre sentenc e investig ation repor t. This r eport states that Oc kle be rr

y take s med ic a tio n for de pr e ssi on . Th e re is no ind ic a tio n, ho we ve r, that he i s me nta lly ill . B oth he and his a tto rn e y

a ssu re d th e tr ia l c ourt

that he wa s c omp e te nt, and the re i s noth ingin the re cord to sug g est otherwise . There is no evidence to support an y o f Oc k l eberry ’s other complaints reg ardinghis a t t o rney . He ha s not overcome the pre sumption t hat counse l rende red
rea sonable prof

essional assistance
. Se e J ac k so n v . S tate , 877 S.W .2d 768 , 7 7 1 (T ex . Crim. App. 1994). Oc kle be rr

y a lso ur g e s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt a bu se d its dis c re tio n by

fa ili ngto t a ke int o
acc ount his mental health history in assessing punishment. Given Ockle berr y ’s criminal re cord, the punishment a ssessed was within the rang e pre scribed f or the off ense. The re is no basis in the re cord for f inding a n abuse of

discretion. We have reviewe d the re cord, c ounsel’s brief , and the pr o se brief

. We find nothing in the rec ord that mig ht arguably support the appe al. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is gr anted.3 The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: Mar ch 17, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh