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

NO. 03-0 9 -00 490 -CR

Ra ul R am ir e z Ca r de nas , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-08 -20 7490 , HO NORAB LE MI CHAEL LY NCH , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
A jury found Raul Cardena s g uilty of driving while intox icated. See Tex. P enal Code Ann. § 49.04 (West 2003) (def ining crime of driving while intox icated) . The indictment alleg ed that Cardena s had pre viously

been c onvicted of two pr ior driving -whil e-intoxi cate d offe nses, which elevated the cr ime char g ed to a f elony
. See id. § 49.09(b) ( West S upp. 2009) (e levating offe nse leve l for pr ior convictions). The indictment also contained a n enhanc ement sec tion alleg ing that Cardena s had previously been convicted of two prior fe lony offe nses. See id. § 12.42(d) ( West S upp. 2009) (ele vating permissible punishments due to prior felony convictions). After the jury found Carde nas g uil ty , th e dis tr ic t court he ld a pun ish me nt h e a ri ng . D ur ingthe he a ri ng , Ca rd e na s p le a de d “ tr

ue ” to the enhanceme nt alleg ations. Ultimately , the di strict court determined that the prior alleg ations were true a nd imposed a punis hment of twenty -five y ear s’ imprisonment. Shortly afte r the punishment
was a ssessed, Carde nas appe aled the district c ourt’s judg ment.No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Cardena s wish to seek fur ther re view of 1 his case by

the cour t of criminal appe als, he must ei t h er re t ai n an attorne y to file a pe tition for discretionar

y revie w or file a pro se petition for discretionary revie w. Se e ge ne ra lly Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (g overningproce eding s in Texas Court of Crimi n al Ap peals). A ny petition for dis c re tio na

ry re vie w mus t be fi le d wi thi n thi rt y da y s fr om the date of e ith e r thi s op ini on or the date this Court overr

uled the last timely motion for rehe aringfiled. See id. R. 68. 2. Th e pe tit ion mus t be fi le d wi th thi s Court , a ft e r wh ic h it wi ll be fo rw a rd e d to the c ourt of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls a lon g wi th the re st of the filings in this case . See id. R. 6 8. 3, 68 .7 . A ny pe tit ion fo r d isc re tio na

ry re vie w s ho uld comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of

appellate proce dure. See id. R. 68.4, 68.5. 2 On appe al, Cardena s’s attorney has filed a brief asser ting that the appe al is frivolous and without mer it a

nd a motion seeking leave to withdraw a s Cardena s’s counsel. B eca use the brie f prese nts a profe ssional evaluation of t he record and demonst rate s that there are no arguable g rounds to be adva

nced, the brief me ets the re quirements articulated in An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1967)
. Se e Pe ns on v . O hio , 4 88 U. S. 7 5, 80 (1 98 8) ; Hi gh v . S tat e , 573 S.W .2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Furthe r, Carde nas’s attorney sent Carde nas a c opy

of the A n d

e rs brief and advise d him that he had the r ight to examine t h e re cord a nd file a pr o se brief

. Se e An de rs , 38 6 U .S. a t 74 4; J

ac k so n v . S tat e , 485 S.W .2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). Cardena s has not filed a pr o se brief

. We have c onsidered the rec ord and the brief filed by Cardena s’s attorney and ag ree that the appe al is frivolous and without merit. After revie wing the evidenc e pre sented to the jury and the pr oc edu res that w e re ob se rv e d, we fi nd no thi ngin t

he re c or d th a t mi g ht a rgua bly support the appe al. Acc ording ly , we g rant Car d en as ’s attorne y ’s motion to withdraw and a ffirm Cardena s’s conviction. 13 __________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: August 19, 2010 Do No t Pu

bli sh