### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 09 -0 00 35 -C R

______________________________ RUSTY BOB BEENE, Appe llant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 6th J udicial District Court

L amar County , Texas Trial Court No. 22340

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice MoseleyB e e ne a pp e a ls thr e e c omp anio n a

pp e a ls, c a u s e n u m b e r s 0 6
- 0 9
- 0 0 03 5- CR, 06 -0 9- 00 03 6- CR 1 and 06-09- 00037-CR, all decided this date, from the revoc ations of his c ommunity supervision of the offe nses of forg ery of a financ ial instrument, bur g lary of a building , and thef

t of proper

ty . The sentenc es ar e to run c oncurr ently
. 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Rusty Bob B eene appea ls f

rom the revoc ation of his community supervision, on his pleas of "tr ue" to the State' s alleg ations contained in its motion to revoke , for the underly ing offense s of two counts of for g ery

of a f inancial inst rument. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 32.21 (Ve rnon Supp. 20 09 ). B e e ne wa s se nte nc ed by the tr ia l c ourt

to t we nty -f our m on ths ' c on fi ne me nt i n a state -j a il faci l i t y , a fine of $500.00, and r estitution of $3,573.06. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a rt . 1 42 .0 37 (V e rn on

Sup p. 20 08 ); T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 12.3 5 (V ernon Supp. 2009). B eene was repr esente d at trial by

a diffe rent, a

ppointed, counsel than the one on appe al. B e ene's att orn e y

ha s f ile d a br ie f whic h d isc us se s th e re c or d a nd re vie ws the pr oc e e din g s. Counsel ha s thus pr ovided a profe ssional e valuation of the re cord de monstrating why , in effe ct, there
are no arguable g rounds to be advanc ed. This meets the r equire ments of An de rs v. Cal ifo rn ia , 386 U. S. 7 38 (1 96 7) ; Sta

ffo rd v . S tate , 813 S.W .2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); and Hi gh v . S tate , 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [ Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel mailed a copy

of the brie f to Be ene on Aug ust 3, 2009, infor ming B eene of his rig ht to examine the entire a

ppellate r ecor d and to file a pro se re sponse. Counsel simult aneously filed a motion with this Court seekingto withdraw a s co u n s el i n this appeal. B eene has neither filed a pro se r esponse, nor

has he r equeste d an extension of time in which to file such a r esponse.Since we ag ree this c ase prese nts no reve rsible err or, we also, in a ccor dance with An de rs , 2 g ra nt c ouns e l' s re qu e st to wi thd ra w fr om fu rt he r re pr e se ntatio n of B e e ne in t his c a se . N o s ub sti tut e counsel will be a

ppointed. Should Bee ne wish to seek f urther r eview of

this case by

the Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls, Bee ne must either r etain an attorney to file a pe tition for discretionar y revie w or B eene must file a pro se pe tition for discretionar y revie w. Any

petition for discre tionary revie w must be filed within thirty d ay s fr o m t h e date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for re he ari ng that wa s o ve rr

ule d b y thi s Co ur t. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2. Any petition for discre tionary revie w m ust be filed with this Court, afte r which it will be forwa rded to the Te x as Court of Criminal Appea ls along with the rest of the filings in this case
. See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 68.3. Any petition for discretionar

y revie w should comply

with the require men t s o f Rule 68.4 of the Te x as Rules of Appellate Proc edure
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.4. 3 We have de termined that this appea l is wholly frivolous. We have inde pendently revie wed the c le rk ' s re c or d a

nd the re po rt e r' s r e c or d, and we a g re e that no argua

ble iss ue s su

pp or t an a pp e a l. See Bl e ds oev . S

tate , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). I n a fr ivolous appeal situation, we are to determine wh et h er t h e appea l is without merit and is frivolous, and if so, the appea l must be dismi ssed or a ffirme d. Se e An de rs , 386 U.S. 738. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt . 2

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: October 14, 2009 Date D ecide d: October 15, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh