NO. 07-08 -041 2-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 C APR IL 20 , 200 9

_________

_________

_________

___ CRISTAL GA LE ST OW E, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 12 1 ST DIS T RI CT COU RT OF T ER RY COU NT Y; NO . 483 3; H ON ORABLE KELLY G. M OOR E, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Pursuantto a pl ea barg ain , i n 2002, Appel lan t, Cr is tal Gale Stowe, w as conv icted of endang er in g a c h ild , a sta te j ail felony , and was sent enced to twenty months confine ment, sus pended in fav or of four y ears communi ty super v is ion
. The St ate fil ed a moti on to rev oke communi ty su per v is ion i n 2005 for numerous v iol ati ons of the c ondi ti ons thereof; howev er , t hat moti on w as dis mis sed and communi ty su per v is ion was extended forA n d e r s v . C a lifo r

n ia , 38 6 U
. S
. 73 8, 87 S
. C t
. 13 96 , 18 L. E d.2d 49 3 (19 67 ). 1 N otwi t hs t an di ng t ha t A p p e l l a n t wa s i nfo rm ed of he r r i gh t t o fi l e a pro s e p eti t i on for di s c ret i on ary 2 r ev i ew upon execut i on o ft he Trial C ourt ’ s C ertif ication o f

D ef endan t ’ s R i ght of Appeal , c o u n s e l m u s t c o m p ly w ith R u le 4 8 .4 o f th e T e x a s R u le s o fA p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e w h ic h p r o v id e s th a t c o u n s e l s h a ll w ith in f iv e d a ys aft ert hi s opi ni on i s han ded down, send A ppel l anta copyoft he opi ni on a nd j udgm entt oget herwi t h no t i f i cat i on o f h e r rig h t t o fi l e a p ro s e p e ti ti o n fo r d i s c re ti o n a ry re v i e w . I n r e Schulm an , at408 n. 22 & at411 n. 35. 2 an o t h e r y e a r i n a d d i t i o n t o a me n d me n t s t o t h e c o n d i t i o n s . O n N o v e mb e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 , the Stat e fil ed anot her

moti on to rev oke communi ty su per v is ion ag ain alle g ing vi ola ti ons of the condi ti ons thereof. After a he ar ing on t he St ate’ s mot ion , Ap pel lan t’ s c ommunity super v is ion was re v oked and puni shment w as ass ess ed at the or ig ina l sent ence of tw enty months co nfinement. I n present ing thi s a ppeal , cou n sel hasfil ed an Anders brief in 1 s up po rt of a mo ti on t o w i th draw . W e g ran t 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 , c ounse l cer ti fies h e has co nduct ed a co n scien ti ous ex aminat ion of the record and, i n hi s o pin ion , t he record reflect s n o potent ial ly

pl ausi ble bas is to suppo rtan a ppeal
. Anders v. California , 386 U .S. 738, 744- 45, 8 7 S. Ct . 139 6, 18 L.E d.2d 493 ( 1967) ; In r e Schul m an , 252 S.W .3d 4 03, 4 06 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2008)
. Cou nsel has ca ndi dly di sc uss ed w hy , und er the cont ro ll ing author it ies, t he appe al is fri v olo us. See Hi gh v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 8 07, 8 13 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1978)
. Cou nsel has al so demonst rate d t h at he has co mpli ed w it h the re q u i re me nt s o f Anders and In r

e Schul m an by ( 1) prov idi ng a c opy

of the b ri ef to Appel lan t, (2)notify ing her of her ri g ht to f il e a pro se respo nse if she desired to do so, and (3 ) info rm in g h e r o f

her r ig ht t o fil e a p ro se peti ti on for dis creti onar y rev iew
. In re Schulm an , 252 S.W .3d at 408. By letter, th is Court g rante d App ellantthirty days i n w hich 23

to exerci se her

rig ht to f il e a re spons e to couns el’ s b ri ef, shoul d s he be so inc li ned. Id. at 409, n.23. Ap pel lan t did not file a re s p o n s 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. By the Anders

brief , coun sel asserts th e trial courtp ro p e rl y ruled on all matt ers raised an d f inds no rev ersible error. W e have inde pen den tly ex am ined the en tire record to de term ine w het her the re a re any non-f rivolou s issues w hich m ight suppo rt the ap pea l. See Pen son v. Oh io , 488 U .S. 75, 109 S.Ct . 346, 102 L.Ed. 2d 300 (1 988) ; In r e Schul m an , 252 S. W .3d a t 409 ; Staff ord v. State , 8 1 3 S
. W. 2 d 5 0 3 , 5 1 1 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 )
. W e hav e found no s uch is sues . See G ain ous v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App . 196 9). Afte r re viewin g the re cord and couns el’ s b ri ef, w e ag re e w it h c ounse l that there are no p l a u s i b l e g ro u n d s fo r a p p e a l
. See Ble dsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 8 24 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 200 5). Acc ordin g ly , c ounse l' s motion to w it hdraw is g ra nted and the tri al cour t’ s j udg ment is aff ir med. Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice Do not p ubl is h.