NO. 07-05 -036 8-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 JU LY25, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ JUAN M. PACHECO, APPEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 0 DIS T RI CTCOU RTOF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO . 200 5- 409332; H ON ORABLE JIM BOB D AR NE LL, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON
A p p e ll a n twa s in d ic t e d fo r t h e o f fe n s e o f d ri vin g wh il e i n t o x i c a t e d , a fe lo n y, enhanc ed by

two prev iou s fel ony conv icti ons. Ap pel lan t pl eaded g uil ty , w it hout benefit of a pl ea barg ain , t o the of fense as charg ed and tr ue to the enhanc ement pa ra g ra phs. The tr ial co urt found app ell ant g uil ty and, after

co nduct ing a hear ing on puni shment , s entenc ed app ellantto conf inem entin t he Institu tiona l Div ision, T exas Dep artm ento f Cri min al Justice for a t er m o f for

ty y ea rs . W e affi r m.2

A p p e ll a n t ’s a tt o rn e y h a s f il e d a n A n d e rs b ri e f a n d a m o t io n t o wit h d ra w. A n d e rs v. Cal ifor nia , 386 U .S. 738, 87 S.C t. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1 967)

. In s uppor t of hi s mot ion to w it hdraw , c ounse l cer ti fies that he hasdi li g entl y rev iewed the record, an d i n hi s o pin ion , the record reflects n o rev ersi ble er ro r upon w hic h an appeal ca n be predi cat ed. Id. at 74 4- 45. In c ompli ance w it h H ig h v . St ate, 573 S.W .2d 807, 813 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1978) , c ounse l has candi dly

di sc uss ed w hy , under the cont ro ll ing authori ti es, there isno er ro r in the tr ial cour t’ s j udg ment. Addi ti onal ly , c ounse l has cer ti fied that he has prov ide d appel lan t a copy of the And ers b ri ef and moti on to w it hdraw and appropr iat ely

adv is ed appe ll ant of hisr ig ht to fil e a pro serespon se in this m a tt e r. Stafford v . St ate, 813 S. W .2d 5 03, 5 10 (Tex .C ri m.App. 199 1 ). The cour t hasal so adv is ed appe ll ant o f his r ig ht t o fil e a pro se re spons e. Appel lan t hasnot filed a respon se. By his And ers b rief , coun sel raises groun ds tha t could possibly support an app eal, but c oncl udes the a ppeal i s fr ivolo us. W e have re v iewed th ese g ro unds and made an inde pen den t rev iew

of the en tire record to de term ine w h e t h e r the re are any arg uab le g ro unds w hic h mi g ht s uppor t an appeal

. See Pens on v . O hio , 488 U .S. 75, 1 09 S. Ct . 346 , 1 0 2 L. Ed.2d 300 (1 988) ; Bl edsoe v . Stat e, 178 S.W .3d 824 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2005)

. W e have foun d no su ch arguable g roun ds an d agree w ith cou nsel th at th e ap pea l is f rivolou s.In g ra nti ng co unsel ’smoti on tow it hdraw , howev er , we remind couns el to i n s u re that 1 he has compli ed w it h the “educa ti onal ” duty to infor m appel lan t of

his ri g ht t o fil e a pro se peti tio n fo r d isc re ti onar y rev iew i n the C our

t of C ri minal Appea ls

. Ex par te O wens, 206 S.W .3d 670 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 6) 3 Accordin gly , coun sel’s mot ion to w it h d raw is hereby g rante d and the trial court’s 1 jud g ment i s a ff ir med.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not p ubl is h.