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

NO. 03-04-00354- CR

Chr is V all e

jo , A ppe lla nt
v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 20246 37, H ONO RAB LE WILF ORD F LOW ERS, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A j ur y fo un d a pp e lla nt C hr is Va lle

jo g uil ty of burg lary of a ha bit a tio n a nd tw o c ounts of ag g ravated robbe ry . See Tex. P en. Code Ann. §§ 29.03, 30.02 ( West 2003). The jury assessed punishment at thirty

y ear s’ imprisonment for the bur g lary and at f orty y ea rs ’ i m prisonment and a $1 0, 00 0 f ine fo r e a c h o f t

he a g g ra vate d r ob be ri e s. Ap pe lla nt’ s c ourt -a

pp oin te d atto rn e y

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

that th e a

pp e a l is frivolous and without mer it. The brief me ets the re quirements of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by p re s en t i n g a prof essional eva luation of the re cord de monstrating w hy there are no arguable g rounds to be adva nced. Se e als o Pe ns on v . O hio , 4 88 U. S. 7 5 ( 19 88 ); 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 68 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); J ac k so n v . S tat e , 4 85 S.W. 2d

55 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ); Ga ino us v . S tat e , 4 3 6 S. W. 2 d

1 3 7 ( T e x.2

Cr im. Ap p. 19 69 ). Ap pe lla nt e xer c ise d h is r ig ht t o e xami ne the a pp e llate re c or d an d fil e d a pro se brief r esponding to counsel’s brie f.

Appellant and two a ccomplice s, Hilary Childre and Tiff

any Br adfor d, p l o t t ed the
ro bb e ry of Mik e Cla

rk , a dr ug de a le r wh o the y be lie ve d ha d a larg e su m of mon e y . T he y

dr ov e to Clark’s house, wher e Br adfor d knocked on the door and a sked to use the tele phone. Onc e inside, B ra df or d unlo c ke d th e do or and admitte d Ch ild re , who wa s a

rm e d w itha

sh otgun , a

nd a pp e lla nt, who was a

rmed with a pistol. Childre and ap pellant burst into Clark’s bedr oom and demande d money from him and his companions. During a strug g le, Childre shot a man na med Thomas Pool i nt h e l eg. Appellant ar g ues that the e vidence is leg ally and fa ctually

insufficient to sustain the jury ’s ver dicts beca

use he did not shoot Pool, he was not sho wn t o have stolen a ny thing, a nd the occupa nts of Clark’s house w ere under the influence of drug s. Neither the conviction for bur g lary nor the c onvictions for ag g ravated robbe ry require d proof of

a complete d theft. See Tex. P en. Code Ann. §§ 29 .0 3, 30 .0 2. Th e c ourt ’s c ha rg e pr op e rl y a

uth or ize d a

pp e lla nt’ s c on vic tio n a s a

pa rt y to the robbe ry of P ool. The victim s’ allege d drug use was a factor for t he jury to consider in e valuating the cr edibility of t heir testim ony . Apply ing the appropr iate standa rds of re view, we find the evide nce leg ally and fa ctually

sufficie nt to support the findings of g uilt bey ond a re ason ab l e d o u bt. See J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U.S
. 30 7, 32 4 ( 19 79 ) ( te st f or le g a l su ff

ic ie nc y ); Gr iff in v . S tat e , 614 S.W. 2d 15 5, 15 8- 59 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 81 ) ( same ); Zun iga v . S tat e , 1 4 4 S. W. 3 d 4 7 7, 484 (Te x. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( t es tfo r f ac tu al s u ff

i ci en cy ). T h e p u n i s h m en tas s es s edwa s wi t h i n t h e r an ge presc ribed by

statute.3 Appellant also c ontends that his trial attorne y re n d ere d ineffe ctive assistanc e. Appellant asser

ts that c ounsel was hostile a nd uncooper ative, fa iled to keep him informed, a nd failed to adequately

investigate the ca se. He also complains that counsel failed to objec t to inflammatory evidenc e and untr

ue stateme nts by the prosecutor. These complaints rest on fa ctual alleg ations that
are not supported by

the re cord. The documents attac hed to appe llant’s pro se br ief a re not pa rt of the rec ord and may

not be consider ed on appe al. Po lla n v . S tat e , 612 S.W. 2d

59 4, 59 6 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1981)
. On this recor d, appellant c annot over come the pr esumption that counsel re ndere d
rea sonable prof

essional assistance
. Se e Ma lle tt v . S tat e , 65 S.W .3d 59, 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). We have r eviewe d the record, counsel’s brief, and the pro se brief. We ag ree that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arg uably support the appea l. Counsel’s motion t o withdraw is g rante d.

The judg ments of conviction ar e af firmed.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 3, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh