NO. 07-08 -029 4-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 ARY11, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ SAL VADORE A. LIZAMA, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 36 4 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 0- 432588; H ON ORABLE BRAD LEY S. UN DE RW OOD , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t Sa lv adore A. Li z ama appeal s from the jud g ment re v oki ng hi s c ommunity super v is ion and sent enci ng hi m to s ev en y ears o f c onfinement in the I nst it uti onal D iv is ion of the T exas Departm entof Cri min al Just ic e . A p p e lla nt's att orne y has f iled a brief

in compl ian ce w it h Anders v. C ali for nia , 386 U. S. 7 38, 87 S.C t. 1396, 18 L. Ed.2d 493 ( 1967) and In r e Schul m an, 252 S.W .3d 4 03 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2008)
. Ag re ein g with appo int ed coun sel’s conclusio n the record fails t o s h o w a ny arguably meritorious issue thatcould suppo rtthe appeal , w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.See Tex . H eal th &Safety C ode An n. § 481.112 ( Ver non 200 1) ; Tex . H eal th & 1 Safety C ode Ann. § 481 .13 4(b) (Vernon 200 3). 2 In J anuar

y 2000, appel lan t was ind icted for del iv er y of a cont ro ll ed s ubst ance in a dr ug -free z one. I n M arch 2001, pursuantto a pl ea agreement, appel lan t pl ead g uil ty as 1 charg ed i n the i ndi ctmentand re cei v ed a sent ence inc lu d in g s ev en y ears’ co nfinement, prob ate d for seven y ears. App ellant ’s comm unity supervisi on was condition e d o n his compl ian ce w it h s peci fied te rms and condi ti ons. In M arch 2002, the St a te fil ed an Appl ic ati on to R ev oke Communi ty Super v is ion all eg ing v ar iou s v iol ati ons of the t er ms of appel lan t’ s c ommunity su per v is ion
. This moti on w as dis mis se d and appel lan t was pla ced in Inten si v e Supe rv is ion probati on for a per iod of one y ear . Thereafter , on Fe b ru ar y 20, 2008, the S tate filed a s econd Appl ic ati on to Rev oke Communi ty

Super v is ion , al leg ing e igh t v iol ati ons of the te rms and condi ti ons of appel lan t’ s s uper

v is ion
. This moti on w as heard by the cour t i n J une 200 8. Appel lan t pl ead ”n ot t ru e” to each of the St ate’ s a ll eg ati ons. The cour

t hea rd tes ti mony

from app ellant ’s co mmunity su per v is ion off ic er conc er nin g appel lan t’ s a dmis si ons of use of mar ij uana an d alc ohol , and co ncer nin g appel lan t’ s fa ilu re to re por t as req uired, fai lure to re q uestper mis si on from o r noti fy the prob ation of

f ice of his change of

add ress, fai lu re to ma ke required payme nts an d failure to av oid peopl e of di sreputabl e or har mf ul charact er . The cour t al so heard the tes ti monyAlthou gh the sub stan ce w a s not te sted , the of f icers testif ied to their experience 2 a n d famil iar ity

w it h mar ij uana, in tes ti mony si mil ar to that found suffici ent i n Ve negas v. State, 877 S.W .2d 5 42, 5 44 ( Tex .App. –Beaumont1994, no p et.) , citi ng D eshon g v

. St ate, 625 S.W .2d 327 , 329 -30 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 81). The c our

t found app ell ant: (1 ) commi tted an offense ag ain st the laws of t he St ate 3 of Tex as; ( 2) fail ed to av oid i nju ri ous or v ic iou s habit s; ( 3) fail ed to avo id persons or pl aces of dis re putabl e or

har mf ul charact er ; ( 4) f a iled to repor t t o hi s c ommunity

su per v is ion off ic er as direct ed; and (5 ) faile d to maint ain total abst ine nce from the u se or pos ses si on of alc ohol icbev erag es and any narcot ic or dang erous dr ug s not presc ri bed by a physi ci an. 3 o f tw o Lubboc kp o l i c e o ffi c e rs , c o n c e r n i n g a p p e l l a n t ’ s p o s s e s s i o n i n O c t o b e r 2 0 0 7 o f a g re en l eafysu bst ance that they sa id w as marijua na. 2 Appel lan t di d notof

fer ev ide nce at the hear ing on t he St ate’ s mot ion , buthi s c ounse l poi nted out d efici enci es in some o f the St ate’ s e v ide nce. Co u n sel as ked the c our t t o extend appel lan t’ s p ro bati on and pla ce him in a prog ra m to a ss is t hi m w it h hi s d ru g probl em. After hear ing the ev ide nce, the cour t rev o ke d a p p e ll ant’ s c ommunity su per v is ion , findi ng fiv e of t he Stat e’s all eg ati ons to be “t ru e” and ass ess ed appe ll ant’ s p uni shmentat 3 sev en y ears o f confinement in the Ins ti tuti onal Div is ion
. The cour t c erti fied appe ll ant’ s r ig ht of app eal, a nd h e time ly

f iled no tice of

app eal. Thereafter , appell ant' s appoi nted appel lat e counsel fil ed a moti on to w it hdraw and a br ief i n s uppor

t pursuantto Anders in w hic h he cer ti fies that he has di li g entl y rev iewed th e record an d, in his profession al opin ion , u nde r the con trolling autho rities and facts of this cas e, t here i s n o r e versibl e er ro r or l eg it imat e g ro unds on w hic h a n on- frivolo us appeal arg uabl y ca n be predi cat ed. The br ief disc uss es the p ro cedural his tor y of the c ase and t he4

proceed ing s in c o n n ect ion w it h the moti on to rev oke communi ty su per v is ion
. Cou nsel discusse s the applicab le law and sets fo rth the reaso ns he conclud es the re are no a rg uab ly meri tor iou s i ss ues on w hic h to base an appe a l. Co u n sel has ce rt ified thata c opy of the Anders br ief and moti on to w it hdraw hav e been ser

v ed on appel lan t, and that couns el has adv is ed appe ll ant o f his r ig ht t o rev iew the re cord and file a pro serespon se. John son v. State , 885 S.W .2d 641 , 645 (Tex.Ap p . – W a c o 1 9 94, pet. ref'd). By letter, th is Court also noti fied appe ll ant of hi s oppor tuni ty to submi t a re spons e to the Anders br ief and moti on to wit h d ra w f il e d b y h is co u n s e l. Ap p e ll a n th a s f il e d a re s p o n s e ra is in g a n is s u e o f in e f fe ct ive assistan ce of

coun sel. 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. Nichol s v . St ate , 954 S.W .2d 83, 86 (T e x .Ap p.– San Anto nio 19 97, no pe t.). If this 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 appo int ment of new couns el. See S taff

or d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 503 , 511 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p.1 991 ). In h i s b r i ef, c ou ns el d i s c us s es s ev eral p ot en ti al i s s ue s , bu t c on c l ud es n on e are a rg u a b ly m e ri t o ri o u s . W e a gre e . In a re vo c a t io n p ro c e e d in g, t h e S t a t e m u s tp ro ve b y a preponderance of the ev ide nce that appel lan t v iol ated a condit ion of communi ty su per v is ion as all eg ed i n the moti on to rev oke. Cob b v . St ate, 851 S.W .2d 8 71, 8 74 ( Tex .C rim .App. 1993) ; Her

re rav. Sta te, 951 S. W
. 2 d 1 9 7 , 199 (Tex.App .–Corp us Christi 1997 , no pe t.). W hen the S t a t e a ll eges mo re than one v iolation , proof of any one of

them w ill supp ort re v ocat ion
. Mo or

e v . St ate, 11 S.W .3d 495, 49 8 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D is t.] 2000, no th5

pet.)
. The tr ial j udg e i n s uch a proceed ing i s t he s ole tr ier of fact. Id.;T

ayl or v. Sta te, 604 S.W .2d 175 , 179 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 0). In hi s respon se, a p p e lla n t s eems t o arg ue he re cei v ed i neffect iv e as si sta nce of co u n sel at both the t ri al and app ell ate l ev el in thes e proceed ing s. Se e St r ick lan d v. W ashi ngton, 466 U. S. 6 68, 1 04 S. Ct . 205 2, 80 L.E d.2d 674 ( 1984) and Her nandez v. Sta te, 726 S. W .2d 53, 57 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1986) (est abl is hin g standard for effect iv e as si sta nce of couns el)
. W e s ee no suppo rtfor s uch a c ontent ion i n the record before us . Appel lan t al so menti ons the h arshnes s of t he s entenc e i mposed. A sent ence impos ed w it hin the ra ng e of puni shmentes tabl is hed by the Leg is lat ure g enerall y w il l not b e di stu rb ed on appe al. Fl

or es v. State, 936 S.W .2d 478 , 478 -79 (T e x. App .–E astlan d 19 96, pet. ref ’d). T h e of fe n se to w h ich ap p e lla n t p le a d guil ty was a f irs t d e gre e fe lo n y, with a p u n ish m e n t ra n ge of f iv e to ni nety-n ine ye ars or li fe in pr is on and a fine of up to $10,000
. Tex . H eal th &Safety Cod e Ann. §§ 4 81.112( a) , (c ) ( Ver non 2001); T ex . Heal th &Safety C ode An n. § 481.134 (b ) (V er non 200 3) ; Tex . Pe nal C ode Ann
. § 1 2 .32 (Ve rn on 2003 ). The t ri al cour t s entenc ed appel lan t t o s ev en y ears, the s entenc e or ig ina ll y ag re ed on, a nd a sent ence w ell w it hin the sta tutor il y

per mis si ble rang e. The sent ence impos ed does not ra is e an arg uabl y mer it or iou s appel lat e i ss ue. 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 al so made an ind ependent ex aminat ion of t he record to deter mine w hether there are a n y

a rg u a b l e g ro u n d s w h i c h m i g h ts u p p o rtt h e a p p e a l fro m t h e re v o c a t i o n andC 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 4 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 s e n t e n c e . W e a gre e it p re s e n t s n o a rg u a b ly m e ri t o ri o u s gro u n d s fo r re vie w. Ac c o rd in gl y, we 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. 4

Jam es T . Camp bell

Justice

Do not p ubl is h.