pg. 1 

Appellate Cause No. 13-15-00258-CR 

******************************************************** 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

AT CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 

******************************************************** 

WAYMOND ANDERSON, 

Appellant. 

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. 

********************************************************** 

Appeal from Cause Number 09-CR-2559-F 

In the 214th Judicial District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas 

********************************************************** 

ANDER’S BRIEF

********************************************************** 

CORETTA T. GRAHAM

Attorney at Law 

SBN 50511851 

Graham Legal Services 

3206 Reid Drive, suite 105 

Corpus Christi, TX 78404 

(361) 723-1530 office 

(361) 723-1531 fax 

grahamlegalservices@yahoo.com (E-mail) 

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

ACCEPTED

13-15-00258-CR

THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

9/30/2015 8:48:43 AM

Dorian E. Ramirez

CLERK

 RECEIVED IN 13th COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS 9/30/2015 8:48:43 AM DORIAN E. RAMIREZ Clerk
pg. 2 

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 

Appellant WAYMOND ANDERSON TDC#01997761 

 TDCJ – DOMINGUEZ UNIT 

 6535 Cagnon Road 

 San Antonio, TX 78252 

 

Counsel for Appellant (Trial) At the Trial, the defendant was represented by: 

 LAURA RAMOS 

 SBN 24079179

 400 Mann, Suite 605

 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 

 Phone: 361-991-2068 

 Fax: unknown 

 

Counsel for Appellant (Appeal) On Appeal, the defendant is represented by: 

 CORETTA T. GRAHAM 

 SBN 50511851 

 3206 Reid Drive Suite 105 

 Corpus Christi, Texas 78404 

 Phone: 361-723-1530 

 Fax: 361-723-1531 

Counsel for Appellee The Honorable Mark Skurka 

 Nueces County District Attorney Office 

 901 Leopard, rm. 205 

 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 

 Phone: 361-888-0400 

 Fax: 361-888-0700 
pg. 3 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Item Page 

Identity of the Parties and Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Index of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

Statement of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

Statement Regarding Oral Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

Issues Presented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

Statement of Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

Summary of the Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8 

Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-12 

Prayer/Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

Certificate of Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Certificate of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

 
pg. 4 

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 

United States Supreme Court Cited at Page 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) 6, 7 

Court of Appeals/ Court of Criminal Appeals Cited at Page 

Kelly v. State, PD-0702-13, 2014 WL 2865901, at **1–4 

 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014) 6, 8 

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) 8 

Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340 

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) 8 
pg. 5 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

On or about August 6, 2009, Waymon Anderson (“Anderson”) was indicted 

for Felony Theft, a state jail felony. [CR, Pg. 5, 32] On September 21, 2009, 

Anderson pled guilty and was placed on deferred community supervision for two 

years. [CR, Pg. 70] On July 11, 2001, Anderson’s community supervision was 

modified and extended twelve months. [CR, Pg. 78] On August 22, 2012, 

Anderson’s community supervision was modified and extended another twelve 

months. [CR, Pg. 79-80] On August 8, 2013, Anderson’s community supervision 

was modified and extended a third time for two years. [CR, Pg. 81-82] 

On May 15, 2014, Anderson’s community supervision was modified for a 

payment plan without an extension. [CR, Pg. 83-85] March 18, 2015, the State filed 

a motion to revoke Anderson community supervision. [CR, Pg. 97] On May 5, 2015, 

Counsel was appointed. [CR, Pg. 86] On May 12, 2015, a revocation hearing was 

held and Anderson was given a sentence of twenty months at the Texas Department 

of Criminal Justice, State Jail Division. [CR, Pg. 95-96] The trial court certified 

Anderson’s right to appeal. [CR, Pg. 94] Counsel was appointed for Anderson’s 

appeal on June 2, 2015. [CR, Pg. 103] 
pg. 6 

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT 

I am not requesting oral argument. Further, I have filed a motion to withdraw 

as counsel and have filed this brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967) and Kelly v. State, PD-0702-13, 2014 WL 2865901, at **1–4 (Tex. Crim. 

App. June 25, 2014). After meeting with the appellant, doing careful study of the 

record including the competency and insanity evaluations, and reviewing the 

applicable law, I believe that this case presents no appealable issues. 

ISSUES PRESENTED 

My review of the record reveals no issues which can be advanced in good 

faith. Any arguable points that could exist were waived by Anderson with his plea 

of true to some of the violations of his community supervision. Thus, the questions 

raised in this Anders appeal are: 

I. Whether defense counsel committed ineffective assistance with 

Anderson’s revocation hearing?; and 

II. Whether the trial court committed reversible error with Anderson’s 

sentence? 
pg. 7 

 STATEMENT OF FACTS 

On May 12, 2015, a hearing was held to consider Anderson’s violations of his 

community supervision. [RR Vol. 1, Pg. 1 Ln 18-23] The court confirmed 

Anderson’s identity. [RR Vol. 1, Pg. 4 Ln 13-17] The court reviewed Anderson’s 

constitutional rights in a revocation hearing. [RR Vol. 1, Pg. 5 Ln 4-12] The court 

reviewed the range of punishment. [RR Vol. 1, Pg. 5 Ln 13-22] The court took 

Anderson’s plea to each alleged violation of community supervision. [RR Vol. 1, 

Pg. 7-9 Ln 1-25] For the “not true” allegations, the State presented testimony from 

a probation officer that Anderson was an absconder in 2014, and Anderson admitted 

to using drugs in June and August of 2014 {RR Vol.1 Pg. 11 Ln 1-9; Pg. 15 Ln 16-

24] Anderson testified for his defense. [RR Vol.1, Pg. 19 Ln 1-7] After hearing the 

testimony, the court found Anderson had violated his community supervision. [RR 

Vol. 1, Pg. 26 Ln 12-16] Anderson was adjudicated, revoked and sentenced to 

twenty months incarceration. [RR Vol. 1, Pg. 26 Ln 8-12] This Anders appeal arises 

from Anderson’s pleas and testimony during his revocation hearing. 

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 

I have submitted this brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967) and Kelly v. State, PD-0702-13, 2014 WL 2865901, at **1–4 (Tex. Crim. 

App. June 25, 2014). After having carefully examined this record and after having 
pg. 8 

researched relevant case law, I have concluded that Anderson’s appeal concerning 

the ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be substantiated. Therefore, I request the 

Court's permission to withdraw as attorney of record and to allow Appellant 

Waymond Anderson to file any further briefs he deems necessary. 

ARGUMENT

I. Whether the trial counsel committed ineffective assistance of counsel with 

Anderson’s revocation hearing? 

Analysis 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744, and Kelly v. State, PD0702-13, 2014 WL 2865901, at **1–4, the Court must evaluate whether 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.)); 
pg. 9 

Appellate counsel has reviewed the court records in detail concerning 

Anderson’s assertions that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, and 

counsel has identified no action or inaction on the district court’s part or defense 

counsel’s part that would suggest harmful or reversible error. This case is pending 

in this Thirteenth Court of Appeals from the 214th Judicial District Court in Aransas 

County, Texas. Counsel has not identified any aspect of the revocation hearing that 

would suggest Anderson’s trial counsel was ineffective. In fact, the record 

affirmatively suggests Anderson was given the opportunity to testify in his own 

defense. [RR Vol. 1 Pg. 19-25 Ln 1-25] At the hearing, defense counsel offered an 

additional witness but Court did not want to hear any additional evidence. [RR Vol. 

1 Pg. 26 Ln 2-7] Anderson’s plea of true to some of the violations was voluntarily 

made. [RR Vol. 1 Pg. 7-9 Ln 1-25] Counsel on appeal has reviewed the appellant 

records concerning Anderson’s revocation hearing as follows: 

 REVOCATION HEARING REVIEW 

I. Sufficiency of the indictment, complaint or motion to revoke - CR, Pg. 97-100

II. Any adverse pretrial rulings, including but not limited to rulings on motions to 

suppress, motions to quash, and motions for speedy trial – No adverse pretrial ruling 

exist. 

III. Advising of the Defendant with written Admonishments in compliance with 

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 26.13
pg. 10 

(A) risk of perjury CR, Pg. 87 

(B) right to plead not true CR, Pg. 87 

(C) right to a trial CR, Pg. 87 

(D) right to counsel CR, Pg. 87 

(E) the range punishment range TCCP 26.13(a)(1) CR, Pg. 90 

(F) nature of the charge CR, Pg. 90 

(G) recommendation of punishment not binding on the court 

TCCP 26.13 (a)(2) 

CR, Pg. 88 

(H) Admonishment on plea bargains. TCCP 26.13 (a)(3) CR, Pg. 87 

(I) admonishment on effect of plea if one is not a citizen. 

TCCP 26.13(a)(4) 

CR, Pg. 88 

(J) no plea accept unless defendant is mentally competent to 

accept plea TCCP 26.13 (b) 

CR, Pg. 87 

(K) court compliance with review of written 

admonishments for defendant TCCP 26.13 (c & d) 

CR, Pg. 93 

(L) inquire into victim statement (if applicable) TCCP 

26.13(e) (1)

N/A

(M) inquiry into notice to victim (if applicable) TCCP 26.13 

(e) (2)

N/A

(N) inquiry on registration requirement of Chapter 62 (if 

applicable) TCCP 26.13 (a)(5) & (h) 

N/A

IV. Trial Court proceedings 

(A) Whether the issue of competency was raised prior to 

sentencing; inquiry into a plea bargain.

N/A

(B) defendant’s waiver of trial rights RR Vol. 1, Pg. 5 

(C) nature of the charges or allegations RR Vol. 1, Pg. 4, 6 

(D) Whether appellant was mentally competent when the 

court accepted the pleas of true or not true

RR Vol. 1, Pg. 6-10 

(E) the range punishment range RR Vol 1 Pg. 5 

(F) applicable fines same citation as ( E)
pg. 11 

(G) any applicable forfeiture N/A

(H) any applicable restitution CR, Pg. 99 

V. Voluntariness of Plea of “True” CR, Pg. 90 

 VI. Any adverse rulings during the sentencing hearing on objections or motions - 

none

 VII. Any failure on the part of appellant's trial counsel to object to fundamental 

error. - none

 VIII. Whether the sentence imposed was within the applicable range of 

punishment. RR Vol. 1 Pg. 26 Ln 8-16 

IX. Factual Basis for the Revocation CR, Pg. 95 

X. Judicial Consideration of Plea Agreement (advisory to defendant on the type 

of plea considered) - N/A 

XI. Accepting Plea Agreement (informing defendant that, to

the extent agreement is of specified type, the agreed 

disposition will be in the judgment) 

N/A

 XII. Whether the written judgment accurately reflects the sentence that was 

imposed and whether any credit was properly applied. CR, Pg. 95-96

 XIII. Whether the appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel. - No 

evidence found on ineffective assistance of counsel.

II. Whether the trial court committed reversible error with Anderson’s 

sentence? 

Analysis 

 Appellate counsel has reviewed the court records for Anderson’s sentencing 

and has detected no error, clear or harmless. In this cause, Anderson was placed on 

community supervision for a state jail felony. [RR Vol. 1 Pg. 4 Ln 13-21] The range 
pg. 12 

of punishment for state jail felony is one hundred and eighty days up to two years in 

the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. [CR, Pg. 20, 70] 

There are no plea bargains in a revocation hearing. [CR, Pg. 87] A revocation 

hearing was held and the trial court imposed a ten month sentence. [CR, Pg. 95] 

Anderson was given time credits toward his sentence. [CR, Pg. 95] 

CONCLUSION 

In accordance with Anders v. California and Kelly v. State, I have examined 

the record for issues which might arguably support an appeal. In my opinion, there 

are none. Consequently, I respectfully move to withdraw from this case in 

accordance with Anders and ask the Court to rule on this appeal accordingly. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 _/s/Coretta T. Graham____________ 

CORETTA T. GRAHAM

Attorney at Law 

SBN 50511851 

Graham Legal Services 

3206 Reid Drive, suite 105 

Corpus Christi, TX 78404 

(361) 723-1530 office 

(361) 723-1531 fax 

grahamlegalservices@yahoo.com (E-mail)

 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
pg. 13 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

 I, CORETTA GRAHAM, certify that there are 2,572 words in the document 

per the word count of the computer program used to prepare the document. 

 _/s/Coretta T. Graham____________ 

CORETTA T. GRAHAM
pg. 14 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, CORETTA GRAHAM, certify that, a copy of this Anders brief for 

Appellant Waymond Anderson was served upon following parties on or about 

September 30, 2015 via fax, electronic mail or certified mail: 

The Honorable Mark Skurka 

Nueces County District Attorney Office 

901 Leopard Street rm. 205 

Corpus Christi, TX 78401 

Phone: 361-888-0400 

Fax: 361-888-0700 

WAYMOND ANDERSON TDC#01997761 

TDCJ – DOMINGUEZ UNIT 

6535 Cagnon Road 

San Antonio, TX 78252 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 _/s/Coretta T. Graham____________ 

CORETTA T. GRAHAM

Attorney at Law 

SBN 50511851 

Graham Legal Services 

3206 Reid Drive, suite 105 

Corpus Christi, TX 78404 

(361) 723-1530 office 

(361) 723-1531 fax 

grahamlegalservices@yahoo.com (E-mail) 

 

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT