
NO. 07-05-0122-CR



IN THE COURT OF APPEALS



FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



AT AMARILLO



PANEL A



MARCH 8, 2006



______________________________





PAULO B. TREVINO, A/KA PABLO TREVINO, A/K/A PAUL TREVINO, APPELLANT



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE





_________________________________



FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;



NO. 2004-407842; HONORABLE CECIL G. PURYEAR, JUDGE



_______________________________



Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Paulo B. Trevino, a/ka Pablo Trevino, a/k/a Paul Trevino was convicted by a jury of driving while intoxicated, enhanced by three prior convictions for driving while intoxicated, a burglary conviction, and a criminal mischief conviction.  At the punishment phase, appellant pled true to the enhancement paragraphs and the trial court assessed a life sentence.  
In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an 
Anders
(footnote: 1) brief in support of a motion to withdraw.  We grant counsel’s motion and affirm.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has diligently reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1984, no pet.).
 Thus, he concludes the appeal is frivolous.  Counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the court's judgment.
  
See
 High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978).  Counsel has also shown that he sent a copy of the brief to appellant and informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without merit.  In addition, counsel has demonstrated that he notified appellant of his right to review the record and file a 
pro se
 response if he desired to do so.  The Clerk of this Court has also advised appellant by letter of his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.  Appellant did file a
 
response; the State, however, did not favor us with a brief.

Appellant was stopped for speeding.  The officer who initiated the stop testified that appellant had difficulty fumbling through his wallet to locate his driver’s license and his speech was slurred.  A strong odor of alcohol was detected by the officer, and numerous empty beer bottles were in the vehicle.  After appellant unsuccessfully performed three field sobriety tests, he was arrested and transported to jail.



We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous grounds which might support the appeal.  
See
  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991).  We have found no such grounds.  After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s 
pro se
 response, we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.  
See
 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005).

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Don H. Reavis

    Justice



Do not publish.

FOOTNOTES
1:Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).


