# NUM BERS 13-0 9-00 388- CR 13-0 9-00 389- CR 13-0 9-00 390- CR 

# COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G

JA M ES R EED III A

/K/A JA M ES R EED , A pp ellan t,

v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 52n d Dist rict C ou rt o f

Jef ferso n Co un ty , T exas . 

# ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es Y añ ez a n d G arza

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z On March 29 , 200 7, ap pellan t, Ja me s Reed III a/k/a Jame s Reed, plead ed n oloSee T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. §§ 12

. 33 (Ve rno n S up p. 20 09 ), 29. 02 ( Ver non 2003)

. Appel l at e cau se 1 nu m be r 13-0 9-3 88 -C R i s t ri al co urt ca us e n um be r 950 27 ; ap pe l l ate c au s e n um be r 13-0 9-3 89 -C R i s t ri al co urt cause num ber 951 29; and app el l at e cau se nu m ber 13- 09- 390- C R i s t r i al cour t cause num ber 951 30. Each o ff e n s e h a d d i ff e re n t vi c ti m s
.

See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 42

. 12 , § 5 (a) ( V ern on S up p. 20 09 ). 2
The j u d g m e n t s i n 1 3
- 0 9
- 3 8 9
- CR a n d 1 3
- 0 9
- 3 9 0
- CR s t a t e t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e s a r e t o r un 3 c on s ec uti vel y
. T he j ud gm en t i n 1 3-0 9-3 88 -C R stat es t ha t t he se nten c e i s t o run “co nc urren t l y
. ” T he rec ord shows t hat t he t r i al cour t or der ed t he sent ence i n 13- 09- 389- C R t o r un consecut i v e t o t he se nt ence i n 13
- 09- 3 8 8 -C R , a n d th e s e n te n c e i n 1 3 -0 9 -3 9 0 -C R to ru n c o n s e c u ti v e to 1 3 -0 9 -3 8 9 -C R

.

T h i s a p p e a l w a s tra n s fe rr e d to th i s C o u rt fr o m th e N i n th C o u rt o f A p p e a ls p u rs u a n t t o a d o c k e t- 4 e q u a l i za ti o n o rd e r i s s u e d b y th e T e x a s S u p re m e C o u rt. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 7 3.00 1 (V ern on 20 05 ). 

## 2 c o n t e n d e re t o t h re e o f

fe n s e s o f

se c o n d -d e gr e e fe lo n y ro b b e ry. I n e a c h c a s e , the t ri al 1



## co u rt found the ev ide nce suffici ent t o s uppor t app ell ant’ s g uil t, deferr ed adj udi cat ion of g uil t, and pl aced appel lan t on communi ty su per v is ion for e ig ht y ears. The Stat e fil ed a 2 

## moti on to r ev oke appel lan t’ s c ommunit y su per v is ion i n eac h c ase, alle g ing thatappel lan t had c ommitt ed s ev er al v iol ati ons of the te rms of his co mmunity su per v is ion

. At a hear ing condu cte d on Ma y 4, 2009, appel lan t ple aded “t ru e” to tw o of t he all eg ati ons. On June 8, 200 9, Ree d w as ad judicat ed g uilty and sent ence d to tw ent y y ears’ imp risonm ent in each
case. The trial court ce rtif ied app ellant ’s right t o app eal in each ca se, and t hese app eals

3 

## follo w ed. W e aff ir m in eac h c ase.

4 

## I. A N D ERS 

## B RI EF 

## Pursuantto And ersv. California , 386 U .S. 738, 744 ( 1967) , app ell ant’ s c ourtappoi nted appel lat e c ounse l has filed a br ief w it h this Cour t, stat ing that his re v iew of the
re co rd yield e d no grou n d s o r er ro r u p o n w h ich an ap p e a l ca n be pre d ica te d . A lt h o u gh counsel ’s br ief does not adv ance any arg uabl e g ro unds of error , i t doe s p re senta pr ofessi onal ev alu ati on of the re cord demonst ra ti ng w hy ther e ar e no arg uabl e g ro unds toSee I n r e Schulm an , 252 S

. W

. 3d 4 03, 407 n. 9 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 8) ( “ I n T exas, an A nd ers br i ef 5 ne ed no t sp ec i fi c al l y ad van c e ‘a rg u a b l e ’ p oi nts o f err or i f co un s el fi nd s no ne , bu t i t m us t provi de rec ord r ef er ences t o t he f act s and pr ocedur al hi st or y and set out per t i nent l egal aut hor i t i es. ” ) ( ci t i ng H a w k in s v . S ta te , 1 1 2 S .W .3 d 3 4 0 , 3 4 3 -4 4 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.)); S ta ffo rd v . S ta te , 813 S

. W

. 2d 503, 510 n .3 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ).

H i g h v . S ta te , 5 7 3 S .W .2 d 8 0 7 , 8 1 3 (T e x . C rim . A p p . [ P a n e l O p .] 1 9 7 8 ). 6 S ee A nd ers , 386 U

. S. at 744 ; S t aff ord , 8 1 3 S .W .2 d a t 5 1 0 n .3 ; see a l so I n r e Schulm an , 252 S. W

. 3d 7 a t 4 0 9 n .2 3

. T h e T e x a s C o u rt o f C rim i n a l A p p e a l s h a s h e l d th a t “th e p ro s e re s p o n s e n e e d n o t c o m p l y w i th t he rul es of ap pe l l ate pro c ed ure i n o rde r t o b e c on s i de red

. R athe r, t he re s po ns e s ho ul d i de nti fy fo r t he co urt t hose i ssues whi ch t he i ndi gent app el l ant bel i ev es t he co ur t shou l d con si der i n de ci di ng whet her t he ca se pre s en t s an y m eri t ori ou s i s s ue s
. ” I n r e Schulm an , 252 S. W

. 3d a t 409 n. 23 ( quot i ng W i l s on v . S ta te , 955 S

. W

. 2d 69 3, 69 6-9 7 (T ex
. A pp
. –W ac o 1 99 7, no pe t

. ))

.

S e e i d

. 8
P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U .S . 7 5 , 8 0 (1 9 8 8 ). 9 

## 3 be a dvanced on ap pea l. 5 

## In c ompli ance w it h Hi

gh v. State , a p p e ll a n t ' s co u n s e l h a s ca re f u ll y d is c u s s e d wh y,

6 

## under co ntroll ing auth or it y , t her e ar e no er ro rs in the tr ial cour t' s jud g ment. C ounse l has infor med thi s C our

t t hat h e has : (1 ) ex amined the record and found no arg uabl e g ro unds to ad v ance on appe al, ( 2) se rv ed a copy of t he br ief and couns el’ s moti on to w it hdr aw on app ellant , and (3) i nforme d ap pellan t of his rig ht to rev iew the record and to f ile a pro se
re spons e. M or e tha n an adeq uate per iod of t ime has pass ed, a nd appe ll ant h as not fil ed

7 

## a pro s e r espon se. 8 

## II. I NDEPE NDENT 

## R EVI EW 

## Upo n r ecei v ing an And ers br ief, w e mustco nducta full ex aminat ion of all the pr oceed ing s t o det er mine w hether th e ca se is w hol ly fri v olo us. W e hav e r ev iew ed th e

9 

## enti re r ecord and couns el' s b ri ef and hav e found not hin g that w oul d arg uabl y suppo rtanS e e B l e d s o e v . S ta te , 178 S. W

. 3d 8 24, 826
- 28 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 5) ( “ D ue t o t he nat ur e of 10 A nd ers br i ef s, by i ndi cat i ng i n t he o pi ni on t hat i t consi der ed t he i ssues r ai sed i n t he b r i ef s and r ev i ewed t he r ecor d f or r ev er si bl e er r or but f ound none, t he co ur t of app eal s m et t he r equi r em ent of T ex as R ul e of A p p e l l a te P ro c e d u re 4 7 .1 .”); S t aff ord , 8 1 3 S .W .2 d a t 5 0 9

. S ee A nd ers , 386 U

. S. at 744 ; see also I n re Schulm an , 252 S. W

. 3d a t 408 n. 17 ( ci t i ng Jef f er y v. 11 S ta te , 903 S. W

. 2d 7 76, 779
- 80 ( T ex. A pp. –D al l as 19 95, no pet

. ) ( not i ng t hat “ [ i ] fan at t or ney bel i ev es t he appea l i s fr i v ol ous, he m ust w i t hdr aw fr om re pr esent i ng t he appel l ant

. T o wi t hdr aw fr om r epr esent at i on, t he appoi nt ed a t t or ney m ust f i l e a m ot i on t o wi t hdr aw accom pani ed b y a br i ef showi ng t he appel l at e cour t t hat t he a p p e a l i s frivo l o u s .”) ( c i ta ti o n s o m i tte d ))

.

See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 8 .4 ; see also I n re Schulm an , 2 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 4 1 2 n .3 5 ; Ex part e O w ens , 206 12 S .W .3 d 6 7 0 , 6 7 3 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). N o s u b s ti tu te c o u n s e l w i l l b e a p p o i n te d

. S h o u l d a p p e l l a n t w i s h to s e e k fu rth e r re v i e w o f th i s c a s e b y th e T e x a s C o u rt o f C rim i n a l A p p e a l s , h e m u s t e i th e r re ta i n a n a tto rn e y to f i l e a pet i t i on f or di scr et i onar y r ev i ew or f i l e a pr o se peti t i on fo r d i s c ret i onar y r ev i ew. Any pet i t i on f or di scr et i onar y r ev i ew m ust be f i l ed wi t hi n t hi r t y day s f r om t he d at e of ei t her t hi s opi ni on or t he l ast t i m el y m ot i on fo r re h e a rin g th a t w a s o v e rr u l e d b y th i s C o u rt. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 2. Any pet i t i on f or di scr et i onar y r ev i ew m u s t b e fi l e d w i th th i s C o u rt, a fte r w h i c h i t w i l l b e fo rw a rd e d to th e T e x a s C o u rt o f C rim i n a l A p p e a l s
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 6 8 .3 ; 6 8 .7

. A n y p e ti ti o n fo r d i s c re ti o n a ry re v i e w s h o u l d c o m p l y w i th th e re q u i re m e n ts o f R u l e 6 8 .4 o f th e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a te P ro c e d u re
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 4. 

## 4 app eal. Ac cordin g ly , w e aff ir m the jud g ments of the tr ial co urt i n eac h c ase.

10 

## III
. M OT I ON TO 

## W IT H D R AW 

## In ac cordance w it h And ers , app ell ant’ s a ttor ney has as ked thi s C our

t for per mis si on to w it hdr aw

as co unsel for a ppel lan t. W e g ra nt c ounse l’ s mot ion to w it hdr aw
. 11 

## W it hin f iv e day s o f the dat e of thi s C our t’ s o pin ion , c ounse l is order ed to se nd a copy of the o pin ion and jud g ment t o appel lan t and to adv is e appel lan t of hi s r ig ht t o fil e a p e t it io n fo r d is c re t io n a ry r e vie w. 12



## LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX


## . R. A PP 

## . P. 47 .2(b). Del iv er ed and filed the 19th day of Aug ust , 201 0.