/022/S no. /Wk<;^/o IN THE ORIGINAL COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS -SywQ-JU £o* \ CV\GjAL\fb\h,* (Tart (V^^C-fiK ly earl (Yxc^^Qi ir- [APPELLANT] Petitioner THE STATE OF TEXAS Petition in Cause No.ft \^Si± -tVOfrom the (g^f Judicial District Court oftia.(d county, Texas and Case No. 07->^ - exHa^-CR in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Supreme Judicial District of Texas gf flftNArillo TovaS> PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS: [APPELLANT] petitions the Court to review the judgment affirming his conviction for the degree felony oftfyOO \u\itiS and punishment assessed at P* ***** ' \ yea*s confinement in the TDCJ-ID. STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT The grounds for review set forth in this petition concern ~7\*~ YY[c^ia.c/£^ Oral argument would be helpful to the Court in determining an important constitutional issue, i.e., . STATEMENT OF THE CASE The issues in this case concern Ti^ jfVWflA fa**-*' • STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner was charged by indictment with the $QQ^ degree felony offense of >"uQfg_4V\ftyv4faDQ bjlteS j\#rf fThe jury convicted Petitioner of the offense of \Uai|j| pfapgri^ and sentenced Petitioner to aterm in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division for a period of j-O fv.5A-lpi<> . Petitioner appealed the conviction to the Seventh Court of Appeals. The Seventh Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming Petitioner's conviction on ^Timi ffi l9m /^ . No motion for rehearing was filed by Petitioner. QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW 1. ARGUMENT PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays that this Court grant this petition, and upon reviewing the judgment entered by the Seventh Court of Appeals, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this cause with instructions to Respectfully submitted, APPELANT], [APPEL PETITIONER <* ° Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing instrument was provided to all counsel of record in this matter on the Ik dayof JL.Im , 20/^", in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. " State Prosecuting Attorney P. O. Box 12405 Austin, Texas 78711 County District Attorney Petitioner V Court of appeals; g>ebentlj JBtetrtct of Cexaa at gfotarillo No. 07-14r00425-CR TIMOTHY EARL MANGRAM, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 64th District Court Hale County, Texas Trial Court No. A19552-1310, Honorable Robert W. Kinkaid, Jr., Presiding June 30,2015 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, CJ., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant, Timothy Earl Mangram, entered a plea of guilty on February 12, 2014, to the offense of theft of property with a value of $1,500 or more but less than $20,000.1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find appellant guilty; however, the trial court deferred final adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision for a period of five years. Subsequently, on April 14, 2014, the State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant guilty. Trial on the State's motion 1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A) (West Supp. 2014). occurred on November 7, 2014, and appellant entered a plea of true to one allegation contained in the State's motion to adjudicate. Ultimately, the trial court found all six allegations true and, after a separate punishment hearing, assessed appellant's punishment at confinement in a State Jail Facility for 20 months. Appellant appeals the trial court's judgment. We will affirm. Appellant's attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court's judgment. By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.2 2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant's right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4. FILE COPY BRIAN QUINN Chier'Jusrice (Hmxxi ofappeals VIVIAN LONG Clerk JAMES T. CAMPBELL Justice Js>enentl] ^talrfct of©exaa MAILING ADDRESS: MACKEY K. HANCOCK Potter (Eountg (Eourta £@utlnmg P. O. Box 9540 79105-9540 Justice 501^. ,3)jtIImon>,^wte 2- £' 'O ^ CT - 2. £ v ^ 55- 6 *• - •: -\ *3> Lr