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 Anders1 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.
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
2
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.
3