NO. 07-08 -008 5-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A DE CE MB ER22, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ ET HEL LE T IT IA REED, AP PEL LANT

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 12 1 DIS T RI CTCOU RTOF T ER RY COU NTY; ST NO. 481 3; HON. KEL LY M OORE, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL, HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Ethel Leti ti a R eed, ple d g uil ty to the o ffense of ev adi n g a rres t w it h a motor vehi cle . Purs uant to a ple a barg ain , app ell ant was sent enced to 24 month s i n a Stat e J ail F aci li ty , w it h the j ail tim e s uspen ded, and app ell ant was pla ced on c ommunity super v is ion for a ter m of f ive years. The St ate s ubseq uentl y fil ed an or ig ina l and amende d mo tion to revoke her com mu nity sup erv ision. Af ter hea ring the proof

regarding the State ’s2

amended mot ion to re voke communi ty su per v is ion , th e tri al cour

t found app ell ant h ad v iol ated ce r

ta i n co n d i t i o n sof communi ty su per v is ion and sent enced appel lan t to 24 months i n a s ta te j ai l . W e affi r m. A p p e ll a n t ’s a tt o rn e y h a s f il e d a n A n d e rs b ri e f a n d a m o t io n t owi t h d ra w. A n d e rs v. Cal ifor nia , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct . 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1 967) . In s uppor t of hi s mot ion to w it hdraw , counse l cer ti fies that he hasdi li g entl y rev iewed the record and, i n hi s o pin ion , the record reflects n o rev ersi ble er ro r upon w hic h an appeal ca n be predi cat ed. Id. at 74 4- 45. In compli ance w it h H ig h v . St ate, 573 S.W .2d 807, 813 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1978) , counse l has candi dly dis cus sed w hy , under the cont ro ll ing auth or it ies , t here i s n o er ro r in the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment. Addi ti onal ly , counse l has cer ti fied that he has prov ide d appel lan t a copy of the And ers bri ef and motion to w it hdraw and appropr iat ely

adv is ed appell ant of her r ig ht to fil e a pro serespon se in thi s matter . Stafford v. St a te , 813 S. W .2d 5 03, 5 10 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1991) . The cour t has als o adv is ed appel lan t of he r ri g ht to f ile a pro se re spons e. Appel lan t hasnot filed a respon se. By his And ers b rief , coun sel raises groun ds tha t could possibly support an app eal, but concl udes the a ppeal i s fr ivolo us. W e have rev iewed th e se groundsand made an inde pen den t rev iew

of the en tire record to de term ine w het her t h e re a re any arg uab le g ro unds w hic h mi g ht s uppor t an appeal . See P enson v . O hio , 488 U .S. 75, 109 S.C t. 346, 1 0 2 L . E d . 2 d 3 0 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; B l e d s o e v . S t a t e , 1 7 8 S . W. 3 d 8 2 4 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e have foun d no such a rg uab le groun ds an d agree w ith cou nsel th at th e ap pea l is f rivolou s.C ounse l shal l, w it hin five days a fter t hisopi nio n i s h anded d ow n, s end hi s c li ent 1 a c opy of the o pin ion and jud g ment, alo ng w it h not ific ati on of appel lan t’ s r ig ht to fil e a pro sepeti ti on for dis creti onar y rev iew . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 8.4.

3 Accordi ng l y , c ou ns el ’ s mo ti on t o w i th draw i s h ereb y

g ran te d an d th e tr i al c ou rt’s jud g ment i s a ff ir med. 1
Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not p ubl is h.