A p p e l l a t e c a u s e n u m b e r 1 3
- 0 8
- 0 0 5 7 1
- CR. 1 

### NUM BERS 13-08- 0057 1-CR 13-0 8-00 572- CR 13-0 8-00 573- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - E DI NBURG
JESS E ST EVEN S, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 19t h Dist rict C ou rt o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, Jes se Stev ens, pl eaded g uil ty on A pr il 3, 2008 t o three off enses pursuant to a ple a ag re ement w it h the State. In t ri al cour t c ause number

08- CR -0 017- G, Ste v ens 1A p p e l l a t e c a u s e n u m b e r 1 3
- 0 8
- 0 0 5 7 2
- CR. 2 A p p e l l a t e c a u s e n u m b e r 1 3
- 0 8
- 0 0 5 7 3
- CR. 3 2 ple aded gu il ty

to burg lar

y of a habit ati on, a se cond- deg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN
. § 3 0

. 0 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) , ( c ) ( 2 ) ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 3 )

. I n t r i a l c o u rtc a u s e n u mb e r 0 8
- C R
- 1 1 1 3- G, 2 S t e ve n s p le a d e d gu il t y t o t wo c o u n t s o f c re d it c a rd o r d e b it c a rd a b u s e , a st a t e ja il fe lo n y. See i d. § 32.3 1(b)(1)(A), (d) (Verno n Sup p. 20 08). In trial court cau se nu mb er 07-CR334 9-G, Stevens plea ded g uilty to th ef t of more than $1,5 00 b ut less tha n $2 0,0 00, also 3
a s tate jai l felony

. See i d. § 31.0 3(a), (e) (4)(A) ( Verno n Sup p. 20 08). T he trial cou rt deferr ed adj udi cat ion on the b ur g lar y ch ar g e and pla ced Stev ens on te n y ears’ co mmunity supe rv ision. T he trial court foun d Ste v ens guilty o f t he oth er t w o of

f ense s, sent ence d him to tw o y ears’ co nfinement i n s ta te j ail , s uspen ded t he s entenc e, an d pl aced him on communi ty

su per visio n for fiv e y ears. Al l thr ee s entenc es w er e order ed to r un
c o n c u rr e n t ly. On S eptember

9, 2008, the S tate filed moti ons to rev oke Stev ens’ co mmunity super v is ion i n eac h of the thr ee c ases , w it h each moti on al leg ing thatSte v ens had commi tted sev en v iol ati ons of t he condi ti ons of his co mmunity su per v is ion

. The al leg ed
v iol ati ons re lat ed pr imar il y to Stev ens’ behav ior

at a Substanc e Abuse F elo ny Puni shment Facility . On Sep tem ber 26, 200 8, Stevens plea ded “true” to all seven allegations in ea ch of the th re e moti ons to r e vok e
. The tr ial co urt t hen adj udi cat ed St ev ens g uil ty of the burg lar y off ense and sent enced him to tw enty y ears’ co nfinement in the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce- Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion

. The tr ial cour t al so re v oked Stev ens’ co mmunity super v is ion i n the othe r tw o c ases
. Ag ain, a ll o f h is se ntenc es w er e order ed to r un3

concu rrently. Stevens no w app eals e a c h o f

the th ree case s. W e con sider the app eals to g et he r a nd a ffir m. I. A N D ERS B R I EF Stev ens’ co urt-ap p o inted app ell ate c ounse l has filed a mot ion to w it hdr aw and a brief in suppo rt thereo f

in w hich he state s that he ha s dilig ent ly rev iew ed th e en tire record and that “he f inds t h e a ppe al to be w holly f riv olou s.” See Ande rs v. C alifornia , 386 U .S. 738 ( 1967) . Coun sel rev iew s the meri ts of fiv e iss ues that coul d arg uabl y be s uppor

ted o n appeal : (1 ) w hether

Ste v ens w as “i ll eg all y

pl aced on Probati on” i n tr ial co urt c ause number 08- CR -1 7- G; (2 ) w hether Ste v ens’ co ndi ti ons of p robati on w er e “ unl awful del eg ati ons of
a u th o rit y”; (3 ) whe th e r St e ven s was a f fo rd e d d u e p ro ce ss o f la w a t his re voc a ti o n he a rin g; (4 ) w hether

the ev ide nce w as suffici ent t o e st a b lis h thatSte v ens v iol ated the c ondi ti ons of his probati on; a nd ( 5) w hether Ste v ens w as “l awfully

se ntenc ed foll ow ing hi s rev ocat ion of proba ti on.” C ounse l conc lud es, how ev er , t hat a ll fiv e i ss ues lac k mer itand that any appeal in this case w oul d be friv olo us. See i d. Cou nsel ’s br ief meets the req uirements of And ers as it presen ts a prof ession al evaluation showi ng w hy the re are n o arguable g r o u n d s fo r a d v a n c i n g a n appeal

. Se e In re Sc hul m an , 2 5 2 S

. W

. 3 d 4 0 3 , 4 0 7 n
. 9 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2008) (or ig . proceed ing ); Staf for d v . St ate , 81 3 S. W .2 d 50 3, 5 10 n .3 ( Tex

. C r i m. App . 199 1) (en ban c). In c ompli ance w it h Hi

gh v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 8 07, 8 13 ( Tex . C ri m. App. [Pa nel Op. ] 197 8), coun sel has care f ully discussed w hy, und er cont rolling aut hority, the re are no e rrors in the t ri al cour

t’ s j udg ment. Counsel has i nformed t his C our t t hat h e has ( 1) ex amined the
re cord and has found no arg uabl e g ro unds to ad v ance on appe al, ( 2) se rv ed a copy of theT he T exas Cour t of C r i m i nal Appeal s has hel d t hat “ t he p r o se r esponse nee d no t com pl y wi t h t he 4 rul es of ap pe l l ate pro c ed ure i n o rde r t o b e c on s i de red

. R athe r, t he res po ns e s ho ul d i de n ti fy for t he co urt t hose i ssues whi ch t he i ndi gent app el l ant bel i ev es t he co ur t shou l d con si der i n de ci di ng whet her t he ca se pre s en t s an y m eri t ori ou s i s s ue s
. ” I n r e Schulm an , 252 S

. W

. 3d 403, 409 n. 23 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 8) ( or i g. pr oceedi ng) ( quot i ng W i l s o n v . S ta te , 95 5 S

. W

. 2d 69 3, 69 6-9 7 (T ex
. A pp
. –W ac o 1 99 7, no pe t

. ))

. 4 br ief and moti on to w it hdr aw on appel lan t, and ( 3) i nformed app ell ant o f his r ig ht t o r ev iew the record and to fil e a p ro se r espon se. See Ande rs , 386 U .S . at 744; Sta fford , 813 4 S.W .2d a t 510 n.3. Mo re than an adeq uate ti me has pass ed, and no pro s e r espon se has been fil ed. Se e In re Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 409

. II. I NDEPE NDENT R EVI EW Upo n r ecei v ing an And ers br ief, w e mustco nducta full ex aminat ion of all the pr oceed ing s to deter mine w hether the cas e i s w hol ly

fri v olo us. Pen son v. Ohio , 488 U .S. 75, 8 0 ( 1988)

. W e h a ve re v iew ed th e r ecord and find th at t he appe al is w hol ly fri v olo us and w it hout meri t. See B led soe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 827-2 8 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2005) ( “ D u e t o t h e n a t u r e o f And ers bri efs, byindi cat ing in the opini on it cons ide re d the i ss ues
ra is ed i n the br ief and re v iew ed th e r ecord for re v ersi ble er ro r but found none, the c our t of appeal s met the re q uirements of Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 47.1 .” ); Sta fford , 813 S.W .2d a t 509

. Acc or din g ly , w e aff ir m the jud g ments of the tr ial co urt. III
. M OT I ON TO W IT H D R AW In ac cordance w it h And ers , c ounse l has f il ed a moti on to w it hdr aw
. See Ande rs , 386 U .S. at 74 4; see als o In re Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 408 n. 17 ( ci ti ng Je ffer y v . St ate , 903 S.W .2d 776, 779- 80 (Tex

. App.–D all as 1995, no pet.) (“ If an attor ney b e lie ves the appeal i s fr iv olo us, he mus t w it hdr aw f ro m re pr esent ing the appel lan t. To w it hdr aw from
re p re s e n t a t io n , t h e a p p o in t e d a t t o rn e y m u s tf il e a m o t io n t o wit h d ra w a c c o m p a n ie d b y aN o subst i t ut e counsel w i l l be appoi nt ed. Shoul d ap pel l ant wi sh t o see k f ur t her r ev i ew oft hi s case 5 by t he T ex as C ou rt of C ri m i na l A pp ea l s , he m us t ei t he r r etai n a n a t t orn ey to f i l e a p eti t i on for di s c ret i on ary r e v ie w o r f ile a p r o s e p e tit io n f o r d is c r e tio n a r y r e v ie w . A n y p e tit io n f o r d is c r e tio n a r y r e v ie w m u s t b e f ile d w ith in th ir ty d a ys f r o m th e d a te o f e ith e r th is o p in io n o r th e la s t t im e ly m o tio n f o r r e h e a r in g th a t w a s o v e r r u le d b y th is C o u rt. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 2. Any pet i t i on f or di scr et i onar y r ev i ew m ust be f i l ed wi t h t hi s C our t , af t er whi ch i t w i l l b e fo rw a rd e d to th e T e x a s C o u rt o f C rim i n a l A p p e a l s
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 3, 68. 7. Any pet i t i on f or d i s c re ti o n a ry re v i e w m u s t c o m p l y w ith t h e r e q u i re m e n ts o f R u l e 6 8 .4 o f th e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a te P ro c e d u re
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 4. 5 b r i e f s h o w i n g t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u rtt h a tt h e a p p e a l i s f r i v o l o u s
. ” ) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) )

. W e gr a n tt h e m o t io n t o wit h d ra w. W e furt her

order thatco unsel must , w it hin fiv e day s of the date of this opi nio n, s end
a c opy of the opi nio n and jud g ment to Stev ens and adv is e him of hi s ri g ht to fil e a p eti ti on fo r d is c re t io n a ry r e vie w. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 48.4; see als o In re Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d 5 at 41 2 n.3 5; Ex par

te O wens , 206 S.W .3d 670 , 673 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06).

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 4t h day

of June, 2009.