NO. 07-06 -045 6-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 D APR IL 24 , 200 7

_________

_________

_________

___ W ARREN L. JONES, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 0 T H DI ST RI CTCOU RTOF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 3- 404070; H ON ORABLE JIM BOB D AR NE LL, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Pursua nt to an agreem ent , on Au gust 10, 20 04, App ellant , W arren L. Jone s, ple aded g uil ty

to poss ess ion of a prohi bit ed w eapon and was g ra nted deferred adj udi cat ion in favor of four years comm unity supervisi on. Upon the State ’s Fi rs t Am ended M

oti on to Procee d w

ith Adju dicatio n of Guilt , Appell ant plead ed not true to t he al leg ati ons. The t ri alAnd ers v . California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S. Ct. 139 6, 18 L.Ed .2d 493 (1967 ). 1 Cou nsel se ts forth a “g ro und of er ro r that woul d be bette r sui ted for a w ri t of habeas 2 cor pus proceed ing .” 2 cour t heard ev ide nce on the State’ s motion and thereafter adj udi cat ed App ell ant g uil ty of the charged of

fense and sente nced him to f iv e y ears con f inem e n t
. I n presen ting this appeal , c ounse l has filed an Anders b rief i n s uppor t of a mot ion to w it hdraw . W e g ra nt 1 c ou ns el ’ s mo ti on a nd a ffir m. In s uppor

t of hi s mot ion to w it hdraw , couns el cer ti fies he hasdi li g entl y

rev iewed th e re cord and, i n hi s o pin ion , t hisC our t doe s n ot ha v e j ur is dicti on toadd re ss t h e mer its o f Appel lan t’ s a ppeal reg ardin g the adj udi cat ion of gui lt
. He al so cer

ti fies the record doesnot o t h e rwi s e re f le ctre ve rs ib le e rro r u p o n wh ic h a n a p p e a l c a n b e p re d ic a t e d
. An d e rs v. 2 Cal ifor nia , 386 U .S. 738, 744- 45, 8 7 S. Ct . 139 6, 18 L.E d.2d 493 ( 1967) ; M onroe v . St ate, 671 S. W .2d 5 83, 5 85 ( Tex .App. -- San A ntoni o 1984, no p et. ). T h u s, he c oncl udes the app eal is f rivolou s. Coun sel has candid ly discusse d w hy, unde r the con trolling autho rities, there i s n o er ro r in the c our t' s j udg ment. SeeH ig h v . St a te , 5 7 3 S .W .2 d 807, 813 (Tex .C r. App. 1978)
. Cou nsel has al so show n tha t he senta c opy of the b ri ef to Appe ll ant and i nformed Ap pel lan t t h a t, i n c o unsel 'sv iew , t he appe al isw it hout meri t. In addi ti on, couns el has demonst ra ted t hat h e noti fied Appel lan t of hi s ri g ht to re v iew the re cord and file a pro serespon se if he desi re d to do so. The Cl er k o f thisC our t al so adv is ed App ell ant by l etter of hisr ig ht t o fil e a re spons e to couns el’ s bri ef. Appel lan t di d notfil e a re spons e. N e i t h e r d i d t h e S t a t e fa v o r

u s w i t h a b r i e f.3

As an a rg uab le groun d, cou nsel asse rts the trial court’s inspe ction o f a presen ten ce in ve s t ig a t io n re p o rtp re p a re d p ri o r t o A p p e ll a n tb e in g a dju d i c a t e d g u il ty co u ld h a ve preju dic ed th e c our

t. Counsel then poi nts out that arti cl e 42. 12, § 5( b)of the Texas Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re precl udes re v iew of the t ri al cour

t’ s d eci si on to adj udi cat e g uil t. See Co nno lly v . Stat e, 98 3 S.W .2d 738 , 741 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 9). Counse l also ack now le d ges that er ro r, i f any , dur ing the puni shmentphas e, was not p re ser v ed for re v iew
. SeeTex. R. App. P. 33.1( a) (1 )(A) ; H ardeman v . St ate, 1 S. W .3d 6 89, 6 90 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1999)
. W e ha v e inde pen den tly ex am ined the en tire record to de term ine w het her the re are any non-frivolo us g ro unds w hic h mig ht s uppor t t he appe al. SeePe nson v . O hio , 488 U .S. 75, 1 09 S. Ct . 346 , 102 L.E d.2d 300 ( 1988) ; St a f fo rd v. State, 813 S. W .2d 5 03, 5 11 (Tex .C r. App. 1 9 9 1 ). W e have found no suc h g ro unds. After rev iew ing the re cord and couns el’ s b ri ef, we ag re e w it h couns el that the a ppeal i s fr ivolo us. SeeBl edsoe v . St ate, 178 S.W .3d 824 (Tex.Cr.App. 200 5). Acc ordin g ly , c ounse l' s mot ion to w it hdraw i s g ra nted and t he tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment isaff ir med. Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice Do not p ubl is h.