Opinion
No. 11-16-00059-CR No. 11-16-00060-CR
07-28-2016
JOSHUA MCADAMS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 106th District Court Dawson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 08-6836 & 08-6837-D
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Joshua McAdams, originally pleaded guilty to the offenses of burglary of a habitation and engaging in organized criminal activity. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreements, the trial court convicted Appellant of each offense, assessed his punishment, and placed him on community supervision for eight years. The State subsequently filed an application to revoke Appellant's community supervision. At the revocation hearing, Appellant pleaded true to some of the State's allegations. The trial court found all but one of the allegations to be true, revoked Appellant's community supervision in both causes, sentenced him to confinement for eight years in each cause, and imposed the original fine of $3,000 in trial court cause no. 08-6837-D. We dismiss the appeals.
Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in both appeals. Each motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that no reversible error exists and that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. In each cause, counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, the reporter's record, and the clerk's record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the records and file a response to counsel's briefs. Appellant has not filed a pro se response.
This court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel's brief. --------
Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).
Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the records, and we agree that the appeals are without merit and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court's decision to revoke community supervision. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Furthermore, absent a void judgment, issues relating to an original plea proceeding may not be raised in a subsequent appeal from the revocation of community supervision. Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783, 785-86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Traylor v. State, 561 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 ("In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant's right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68."). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.
The motions to withdraw are granted, and the appeals are dismissed.
PER CURIAM July 28, 2016 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Bailey, J.