NO. 07-07 -034 5-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B FEB RU ARY6, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ ROBERT BOW ERS, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 25 1 ST DIS T RI CT COU RT OF RA NDA L L COU NT Y; NO . 166 50- C; H ON ORABLE AN A ES TEVEZ, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t R ober

t Pa ul Bow e rs appeal s from hi s c onv ic ti on of the off ense of ind ecency

w it h a c hil d and the resul ti ng se ntenc e of e igh teen y ears c onfinement in the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. Ap pel lan t' s a ttor ney has f ile d a bri ef in c ompli ance w it h And ers v. C ali for nia , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S . C t . 1 3 9 6 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1 967) and In r e Schul m an, 252 S.W .3d 4 03 ( Tex .C rim.App. 200 8) , and cer tif ie s th a t t here are no non- friv olo us is sues to appeal . Ag re ein g w it h appoi ntedSee Tex . Pe nal C ode A n n . § 2 1 .1 1 ( Ver non 200 1) . The in dictment all eg ed 1 app ellant , on or ab outJuly 15, 200 4, i nte ntion ally and knowingl y engaged in sex ual con tact w ith V.H., a child y oun ger than 17 y ears of age and n ot th en h is spouse , by causin g V.H. to t ouch his g eni tal s. This is a s econd deg re e felony puni shabl e by

i mpri sonmentfor a ny ter m of not more tha n 20 y ears o r les s t han tw o y ears. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 12.33 (Verno n 20 03). The recorded i nter

v iew w as admit ted i nto e v ide nce at t ri al w it hout obj ect ion . 2 2 coun sel’s conclu sion the record fa ils to show any arguably me ritorious issue t h a tco u ld suppo rtthe appeal , w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment. In D ecember

2004, appel lan t w as ind ic ted for the off ense of i ndece ncy w it h a c hil d. 1 He re tai ned couns el. In Jul y 2007, the matter proceed ed to jur y tr ial w here in th e St a te present ed ev ide nce to s how that i n J uly 2004 ele v en- y ear-o ld V.H . w as sta y ing ov er nig ht w it h oth er

ch il dren i n an apar

tment appel lan t als o occ upi ed w it h his w ife. V.H ., fourteen by th e ti me of tr i al , te s ti fi ed th at du r i ng th e ni g ht s he aw ok e to fi nd ap pe l l an t i n th e roo m, re m o vin g h is h a n d f ro m u n d e r he r sh o rt s . V . H. t e s t if ie d t h a ta f t e r l e a vin g t h e ro o m b ri e f ly, app ellant returne d, l ay down besid e he r and m ade V.H. w rap he r hand aroun d his pen is. He then cov ered her

hand w it h hi s a nd mov ed bac k a nd fort h unt il anot her ch il d i n the ro om appeared to w ake. W hen V.H. resi ste d hi s fur ther att enti ons, appel lan t k is sed her on th e l ips and left t he room. V.H .’ s a unt t est ified thatse v eral months l ater , w hil e the y w ere di sc uss ing V.H .’ s u pcomi ng birthday ce leb ra ti on, V .H . t old her w hat a ppel lan t di d to her . The aunt’ s tes ti mony of V .H .’ s sta tement to her w as cons is tent w it h V. H. ’s v ersi on of th e ev ents of the i nci dent. Ad dit ion al ev ide nce, i ncl udi ng a v ide o- re corded i nter v iew of V . H. , wa s in t ro d u c e d t h a twa s co n s is t e n twit h V . H. ’s t ri a l t e s t im o n y. 23

Appel lan t’ s s tatementto pol ic e w as entered i nto ev ide nce at t ri al. I n tha t s tatement , app ellantconte nds th at on the night in question , he came into the bedroo m where the girls w ere s lee pin g to chec k o n them. Acc ordin g to appel lan t, V.H . w oke up, reac hed out , and put h er hand on his peni s. He sai d he ins tantl y pul led aw ay and tol d her thather cu ri osi ty w oul d g et her int o troubl e and that she had a lo ng l ife ahead of her thatsh e di d notw ant t o r u i n . H e s t a t e d h e l e ftt h e ro o m a n d w e n tt o b e d b y h i ms e l f. Fol low ing the present ati on of the ev ide nce, the jur y found a p p e ll ant g uil ty as charged in th e indictm entand sente nced him to imprison me nt fo r a term of eighteen y ears. App ellanttimely filed his notice o f app eal. Thereafter , app ell ant' s a ppoi nted appel lat e c ounse l filed a moti on to w it hdraw and a br ief i n s uppor

t pursuantto And ers in w hic h he cer ti fies that he has di li g entl y rev iew ed th e record an d, in his prof ession al opin ion, u nde r the con trolling a u tho rities and facts of this cas e, t here i s n o rev ersib le e rror or l eg it imat e g ro unds on w hic h a n on- friv olo us appeal arg uabl y ca n be predi cat ed. The br ief discu ss e s th e proce dural his tor y of the c ase and app ellant ’s jury trial. Coun sel has identif ied poten tial issues, a nd se tting forth th e ap plicable law , des cr ibe s w hy

the is sues are notarg uabl y mer it or iou s. C ounse l has cer ti fied th at a copy of the And ers

br ief and moti on to w it hdraw hav e been ser v ed on appel lan t, and t hat couns el has adv is ed appe ll ant o f his r ig ht t o re v iew the record and file a pro se respon se. Johns on v

. St ate , 885 S .W .2d 6 41, 6 45 (Te x .Ap p.– W aco 199 4, pet . ref 'd). B y le tter, th is Cou rt als o not ified appel lan t of hi s o ppor tuni ty to submi t a re spons e to the And ers br ief and4

moti on to w it hdraw

fil ed byhis couns el. Appell ant h as filed a respon se in w hic h he ra is es three issues. In con formity w ith the stand ards set o ut by the United State s Supre me Court, w e w ill not r ule on t he moti on to w it hdraw unti l w e hav e i ndependen tl y ex amined the re cord. Nich o ls v. Sta te , 954 S.W .2d 83, 86 (Tex.App .–S an An ton io 199 7, no pet. ). If th is Court deter mines the appeal has mer it , w e w il l re mand i t t o the tr ial co urt for appoi ntment of new couns el. See S taff

or d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 503 , 511 (Tex.Crim.App .19 91). In his br ief, c ounse l firs t not es the p oss ibi li ty thatappel lan t mi g ht arg ue he had re cei v ed i n e ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el in thes e proceed ing s. See Strickland v. W ashi ngton, 466 U .S. 668, 104 S. Ct . 205 2, 80 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1 984) and Her nandez v. Sta te, 726 S. W .2d 5 3, 57 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1986) (est abl is hin g standard for ef fecti v e assi sta nce of couns el) . W e ag re e w it h couns el that the re cord cont ain s no suppo rt for suc h a c ontent ion . Cou nsel then disc uss es the l eg al and factu al suffici ency of the e v ide nce present ed a t tr ia l to suppor

t app ell ant’ s c onv ic ti on for ind ecency w it h a c hil d. Appel lan t rais es the sam e in his respon se. Fo llow ing an a nalysis of t he evidence prese nte d and t he a pplicab le law , c ounse l conc lud es the e v ide nce present ed w as both l eg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t t o suppo rtappel lan t’ s c onv ic ti on. After a co mplet e rev iew of the record, w e ag re e w ith app ellate coun sel tha t the g roun ds iden tif ied do not arguab ly supp ort an a ppe al.5

In his respo nse, app ellantraises a pote ntial issue n ot raised by ap pellat e cou nsel. App ellantconte nds th e Sta te engaged in imp rope r jury argume nt during bot h pha ses of his trial. In discussing thi s i s s u e , app ellant ’s response point s to the testim ony of certain w it ness es and c ontends the tes ti mony w as false. It i s t he prov inc e of the jur y to re sol v e or re conc il e c onfli cts i n tes ti mony , and the jur y i s p ri v il eg ed to belie v e all , some or none of the tes ti mony

of any par ti cul ar w it ness . W

esbr ook v. State, 29 S. W .3d 1 03, 1 11 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2000) ; W

ashi ngton v. State, 215 S.W .3d 551 , 553 (Tex.App .–T exarka n a 2 007 , no pe t.). Appel lan t’ s respon se als o referenc es the p ro sec utor ’s openi ng and cl osi ng arg uments and ass erts thatthe Stat e uti li z ed arg ument t o pl ace preju dic ial matte rs thatw ere out si de th e re cord before the jur

y . Appel lan t furt her

arg ues that th e State aroused pas si on and pr ej ud i c es o f t he j ur

y a nd i nv i te d s pe c ul at i on o f t he j ur y b y ma k i ng c er

ta i n argume nts. There are four g enerall y recog niz ed areas of prope r ju ry arg ument: (1 ) summati on of the ev ide nce present ed attr ial ; ( 2) reaso nabl e deducti on draw n f ro m that ev ide nce; (3) ans w er to t he oppo si ng co unsel ’s arg ument; or (4 ) a ple a for law enforc ement. Jacks on v . St ate, 17 S. W .3d 6 64, 673 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000) . After re v iew ing the re cord in i ts enti re ty , w e do notf ind th e grounds ide ntif ied by appe llant arguab ly supp ort an a ppe al. Our re v iew conv inc es us that appel lat e c ounse l condu cte d a c omplet e rev iew of the re cord. W e hav e als o made an ind ependent ex aminat ion of t he enti re re cord to de ter mine w het her the re are any arg uab le groun ds which m ight suppo rt the ap pea l. W e agree itC ounse l shal l, w it hin f iv e day s after the opini on is handed dow n, s end hi s c li ent a 3 copy of the o pin ion and jud g ment, alo ng w it h not ific ati on of the defendant’ s r ig ht t o fil e a pr o s e peti ti on for dis creti onar y rev iew . See Tex . R . Ap p. P . 48. 4.

6 present s n o arg uabl y

mer it or iou s g ro unds for rev iew . Acc ordin g ly , w e g ra nt c ounse l' s mot ion to w it hdraw and aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

3

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.