From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stafford v. State

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Jun 29, 2017
NUMBER 13-17-00012-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 29, 2017)

Opinion

NUMBER 13-17-00012-CR

06-29-2017

DONALD STAFFORD, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.


On appeal from the 25th District Court of Lavaca County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

In 2013, a Lavaca County grand jury indicted appellant Donald Stafford with theft of United States currency in an amount of $1,500 or more but less than $20,000, at the time a state-jail felony. See Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., ch. 1234 (S.B. 694), § 21 (amended 2015) (current version at TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(4) (West, Westlaw through Ch. 34 2017 R.S.)). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Stafford pleaded guilty as charged and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of five years, along with a $1,000 fine, costs, and $553.40 in restitution. The trial court placed various conditions and terms on Stafford's community supervision, including inter alia: following the law; reporting as required by the Lavaca County community supervision division; submitting to drug and alcohol testing; performing community supervision; and making periodic payments to the Lavaca County community supervision division.

On April 11, 2014, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Stafford's guilt, alleging fourteen separate violations of Stafford's community supervision conditions and terms, including inter alia that he: (1) tested positive for methamphetamines use or admitted to using methamphetamines on various occasions during the period of October 2013 to March 2014; (2) failed to report to his community supervision officer; (3) failed to faithfully find employment; and (4) failed to pay various court-ordered fees. On June 17, 2014, the trial court did not adjudicate Stafford but ordered him to serve a term of ninety days to one year in the Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility (SAFPF). On December 23, 2014, the trial court ordered Stafford discharged from SAFPF.

On November 15, 2016, the State filed another motion to adjudicate Stafford's guilt, alleging ten separate violations of Stafford's community supervision conditions and terms, including inter alia that he: (1) committed the offense of credit card abuse on September 26 and 27, 2016; (2) signed an admission to smoking methamphetamines and marijuana on multiple occasions; (3) failed to report to the community supervision division for ten months in 2015 and 2016 by mail; (4) failed to maintain employment; and (5) failed to pay various court-ordered fees.

On December 13, 2016, Stafford signed a written stipulation and judicial confession to eight of the State's allegations against him, including those mentioned above. On the same day, the trial court held a hearing on the State's motion to adjudicate guilt. At the hearing, Stafford testified that he voluntarily signed the written stipulation and judicial confession. The State advised the trial court that the State recommended a punishment of 180 days in state jail with 220 days credit for time served. The trial court found Stafford guilty and sentenced Stafford to eighteen months confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—State Jail Division, with 220 days of credit for time served.

Stafford's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, Stafford's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See id. Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ("In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance 'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.") (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State and Kelly v. State, Stafford's counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court's judgment. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Stafford's appellate counsel also notified this Court that he: (1) notified Stafford that he has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided Stafford with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed Stafford of his rights to file a pro se response, review the record preparatory to filing that response, and seek discretionary review if we concluded that the appeal is frivolous; (4) provided Stafford with a pro se form motion for Stafford to access the appellate record; and (5) informed Stafford that the pro se response, if any, should identify for the Court those issues which he believes the Court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319-20; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510, n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. A reasonable amount of time has passed, and Stafford has not filed a pro se response.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that "the pro se response need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues." In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.).

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988).

We have reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See id. at 827-28 ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, Stafford's attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffrey v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) ("[I]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.") (citations omitted)). We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Within five days of this Court's opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court's judgment to Stafford and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and should comply with the requirements of the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

GINA M. BENAVIDES,

Justice Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b). Delivered and filed the 29th day of June, 2017.


Summaries of

Stafford v. State

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Jun 29, 2017
NUMBER 13-17-00012-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 29, 2017)
Case details for

Stafford v. State

Case Details

Full title:DONALD STAFFORD, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

Court:COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

Date published: Jun 29, 2017

Citations

NUMBER 13-17-00012-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 29, 2017)