NO. 07-03-0467-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B FEBRUARY 7, 2005

______________________________ DONALD RAY COIL, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HA LE COUNTY; NO. B1493 7–0305; HONORABL E ED SEL F, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORAND UM OPINION
D ona ld Ray Coil brings this appeal from his conviction for the felony offense of driving while intoxicated. Agr eeing with app ellant’ s appoin ted couns el that th e record shows no

meritorio us ground s for appe al, we w ill affi rm. Appellant

was charged by an indictment alleging he operated a motor vehicle in a p ublicplace while he was intoxi cated. The indictment contained three enhanc emen t-2-

paragraphs alleging two prior convictions for driving while intoxicated and o ne conviction for the felony offense of burglary. Appellant pled not guilty and was tried be fore a jury which found him guilty. He pled true to the enhan cementparagraphs and punishment was assessed in conformity with the jury’s verdict at fifteen years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant’s appointed trial counsel timelyperfected appeal and new counsel was appointed to represent app ellant on appeal. Appellan t’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), in which he represent

s he has searched the record and in his profess ion al opinion, under the controlling authorities and facts

of t hi s case, there is no reversible error or legitimate grounds for appeal. Counsel has informed appellant by l etter of his right to review the trial record and to file a pro se brief. Johnson v. State , 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex.Ap p.–Waco 1 994, pet. ref'd). By lette r this cou rt also n otified a ppellan t of his o pportuni tyto submi t a respon se to the Anders

brief and motion to withdraw filed by his counsel. Appellant has not filed a brief or other r

esponse. Nor hasthe Statefiled a brief in this app eal.
In conformity with the standards set outby the United States Supreme Court, we will notrule on the motion to withd raw u ntil we have independently examined the record. Nichols v. State , 954 S.W. 2d 83, 86(Tex.A pp.–San Antonio 1997, no

pet.). If this cour

t determines the appeal has merit, we will remand it to the trial court for appointment of new counsel. See Staff

ord v. Sta te , 813 S.W. 2d 503, 5 11 (Tex. Crim.App . 1991).-3-

The evidence at trial showed City of Plai nvie w poli ce officer Manuel Balderas observed appella nt make a left turn at a controlled intersection without yielding to oncoming traffic. The other vehicle had to take evasive action to avoid a colli sion. Intending to make a traffic stop, Balderas turned on his overhead lights and stopped behind appellant at a gas station. He testified appellant had slurred speech, poor balance and poor performance on field sobriety tests. Balderas determined appellant was impai red and a rrested him for d riving while i ntoxica ted. TheState in troduced a video recordin g made of t he event s o ccurring after Bal deras sto pped beh ind appe llant’s vehicle . Two ot her officers at t h e scene al so opine d appell ant was i ntoxica ted.
Balderas testi fied ap pellant subsequently refused to perform a breath test for intoxication insisting on a blood test. Theofficer allowed appellant to contact his stepfather who unsucce ssfully a ttempted to have me dical pe rsonnel go to the jail to perform a blood test. Appellant did not testify at the guilt or in nocence p hase of trial. The jury found appellant guilty. Appell a ntwas the only witness to testify at the punishment ph ase of trial. He admitted having a problem with alcohol. He asked that sentence be set “somewhere in the range of two to five [years incarceration].” On cross-examination he disputed the traf fic violation alleged by

the State. He admitted to five or six arrests for alcohol related offenses and four prior convictions.
Our review of co unsel' s brief and the record convinces us that appellate counsel conducted a thorough review of the record. We have also made an i ndependent-4-

examination of the entire record to determine whether there are an y a rguable grounds which might su pport theappeal. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2 d at 511. We agreeit prese nts no meritorious grounds for r eview. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

James T. Campbell Justice
Do not publish.