No. 12

- 15

- 00144

- CR

IN THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS

GREGORY CARL ROLLING, JR.

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

On Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas Trial Cause No. 114

- 1172

- 14

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUE STED

Austin Reeve Jackson Texas Bar No. 24046139 112 East Line, Suite 310 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 595

- 6070 Facsimile: (866) 387

- 0152 ACCEPTED 12-15-00144-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 8/13/2015 11:53:30 AM

CATHY LUSK CLERKii IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Attorney for Appellant

Appellate Cou nsel: Austin Reeve Jackson 112 East Line, Suite 310 Tyler, TX 75702

Trial Counsel: Norman Ladd 235 S. Broadway Ave. Suite 200 Tyler, TX 75702

Attorney for the State on Appeal

Michael J. West Assistant District Attorney, Smith County 4th Floor, Courthouse 100 No rth Broadway Tyler, TX 75702iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

................................ ................................ . ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

................................ ................................ ............................... iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

................................ ................................ ......................... iv

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

................................ ................................ ....................... 2

ISSUE PRESENTED

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS

................................ ................................ ............................. 2

PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION OF THE RECORD

................................ ................ 3

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

................................ ................................ ............. 3

ARGUMENT

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 4

I. THE TRIAL COURT ACTED WITHIN ITS DISCRETION IN REVOKING APELLANT'S COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

.................. 4

Standard of Review

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4 A. There was Legally Sufficient Evidence to Support the Revocation

................... 5

1. The Plea

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 6

2 . Sufficiency of the Evidence

................................ ................................ ........... 6 B. Appellant's Setence was Within the Statutory Range of Punishment

................. 7 C. Appellant Received Effective Assistance of Counsel

................................ ......... 9

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

................................ ................................ .................. 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

................................ ................................ ..................... 11

CE RTIFICATE OF COUNSEL

................................ ................................ ................... 12

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

................................ ................................ ............ 12iv INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:

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

................................ ... 3 , 10, 12

Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962)

................................ ..... 7

Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983)

................................ . 8

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 105 S.Ct. 1965, 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1984)

................................ . 9

TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

Aguirre

- Mata v. State

, 125 S.W.3 d 473 (Tex.Crim. App. 2003)

................................ ........................ 6

Cardona v. State

, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984)

................................ ........................ 4

Cobb v. State

, 851 S.W.2d 871 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993)

................................ ........................ 6

Cole v. State

, 578 S .W.2d 127 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979)

................................ ........................ 7

Ex parte Brown, 158 S.W.3d 449 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005)

................................ ........................ 8

- 9

Garcia v. State, 57 S.W .3d 436 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001)

................................ ......................... 10

Hernandez v. State, 988 S. W.2d 70 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999)

................................ ......................... 9v TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CON’T):

Jackson v. State, 877 S .W .2d 768 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994)

................................ ....................... 10

Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949 ( Tex.Crim.App . 1973)

................................ ....................... 8

Lyles v. State

, 850 S .W.2d 497 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993)

................................ ........................ 4

Mendez v. State

, 138 S .W.3d 334 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004)

................................ ........................ 6

Miniel v. State, 831 S.W.2d 310 (Tex .C rim.App. 1992)

................................ ....................... 9

Moore v. State

, 605 S .W.2d 924 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980)

................................ ........................ 7

Moore v. State

, 694 S.W.2d 528 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985 )

................................ ........................ 9

Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979)

................................ ....................... 7 n.1

Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113 (Tex.Crim.App. 199 6)

................................ ....................... 8

Rickles v. State

, 202 S .W.3d 759 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006)

................................ ........................ 4 , 7

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W .2d 503 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991)

................................ ....................... 10

Thompson v. State, 9 S.W .3d 808 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999)

................................ ........................... 10vi TEXAS COURTS OF APPEAL:

Aguilar v. State, 279 S.W. 3d 350 (T e x. App.

— Austin 2007)

................................ ................... 9 n.2

Bolden v. State, 73 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2002)

................................ . 8

Brooks v. State

, 995 S.W.2d 7 62 (Tex.App.

— San Antonio 1999)

................................ .......... 7

Canseco v. State

, 199 S.W.3d 437 (Tex.Ap p.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006)

............................... 4

Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 7 19 (Tex.App.

— Dallas 2003)

................................ .................. 8

Duke v. State

, 2 S.W.3d 5 12 (Tex.App.

— San Antonio 1999)

................................ .............. 4

Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.App.

— San Antonio 1996)

................................ ......... 4, 5 , 7

Joseph v. State

, 3 S.W.3d 627 (Tex.App

. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1999)

................................ . 4

Lewis v. State

, 195 S.W.3d 205 (Tex.App.

— San Anto nio 2006)

................................ .......... 4

Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 290 (Tex.App.

— Fort Wroth 1995)

................................ ............ 3

Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d 144 (Tex.A pp.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2007)

.............................. 8

Roman v. State, 145 S.W.3d 316 (Tex.App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004)

............................. 9

Sims v. State

, 326 S.W.3d 707 (Tex.Ap p.

— Texarkana 2010)

................................ ............. 6vii TEXAS COURTS OF APPEAL (CON ’ T) :

Trevino v. State, 174 S.W.3d 925 (Tex.App.

— Corpus Christi 2005)

................................ ...... 8

Uresti v. State,

98 S.W.3d 321 (T e x. App.

— Houston [1st Di st.] 2003)

................................ . 9 n.2

STATUTES AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:

T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE § 481.134

................................ ......................... 8

T EX

. P EN

. C ODE § 12.34

................................ ................................ .................... 8

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 33.1

................................ ................................ .......................... 6 , 8

U.S. C ONST

. A MEND

. VIII

................................ ................................ ................. 7

U.S. C ONST

. A MEND

. XIV

................................ ................................ ................. 7No. 12

- 15

- 00144

- CR

IN THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS

GREGORY CARL ROLLING, JR.

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

On Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas Trial Cause No. 114

- 1172

- 14

TO THE HONOR ABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT:

COMES NOW, Austin Reeve Jackson, attorney for Gregory Rolling and

files this brief pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and would

show the Court as follows:2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Gregory Rolling seeks to appe al his conviction and sentence for the offense

of possession of a controlled substance rendered against him in the 114th District

Court of Smith County. (I CR 86). After being indicted for this offense in Se ptember of last year, Mr. Rolling was, by agree ment, placed on a term of six years

deferred adjudication community supervision. (I CR 4, 52). However, in May of

this year that probation was revoked and Mr. Rolling was sentenced to serve six

years’ confinement. (I CR 86). Sentence was pronounced on 26 May and notice

of appeal then timely filed. (I CR 86, 91).

ISSUE PRESENTED

THE TRIAL COURT ACTED WITHIN ITS DISCRETIO N IN REVOKING APPELLANT’S COMMUNITY SUPERVISION.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In September of 2014, Appellant, Mr. Gregory Rolling, was indic ted for the

felony offense of possession of a controlled substance in a drug free zone. (I CR

4). To this charge, he entered a plea of “guilty” and, pursuant to a plea agreement,

was placed on a term of six years’ deferred adjudication community supervis ion

.
(I CR 52).

Unfortunately , in May of this year Mr. Rolling was facing an application to

proceed to final adjudication in which the State alleged he had committed multiple

violations of his probation. (I CR 71). To the majority of these allegation s Mr.3 Rolling entered pleas of “true” and the trial court, finding the violations to be true,

adjudicated guilt and imposed punishment at six years’ confinement. (I CR 86).

Sentence was pronounced on 26 May and notice of appeal then timely filed. (I CR

86, 91).

PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION OF THE RECORD

In accordance with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738,

744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel has reviewed the record

and determined that, in his professional opinion, the record contains no reversible

error or jurisdictional defects. Under circumstances where there appears to be no

arguable grounds for reversal on appeal, counsel is required to present a profe ssional evaluation of the record supporting this assertion. See Mays v. State , 904

S.W.2d 290, 922

- 23 (Tex.App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Pursuant to the responsibilities and requirements of the governing code of

professional conduct, a thorough review of the record has been made. Couns el’s

research has revealed no arguable, non

- frivolous grounds that could be advanced in

support of a claim that there exists reversible error in the trial, judgment, or se ntence of Appellant. A review and analysis of any potential issues is herein presented for the Court.4 ARGUMENT

Standard of Review

Where a trial court revokes a previously imposed term of community supe rvi sion the decision to do so is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.

Rickels v. State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.Crim.App. 2 006); Cardona v. State

,
665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts

without reference to guiding principles. Lyles v. State , 850 S.W.2d 497, 502

(Tex.Crim.App. 1993). This review considers the record in the light most favor able to the trial court’s decision. Duke v. State , 2 S.W.3d 512, 515 (Tex.App.

— San

Antonio 1999, no pet.).

Proof of even a single violation is sufficient to support a revocation. Ca nseco v. State , 199 S.W.3d 437, 439 (Tex.App.

— Houston [1st Di st.] 2006, pet.

ref’d). Therefore, in order to prevail an appellant must show that taking the ev idence in the light most favorable to the court’s decision there is insufficient ev idence to support each and every finding of the court. Lewis v. State , 195 S.W.3d

205, 209 (Tex.App.

— San Antonio 2006, no pet.); Joseph v. State , 3 S.W.3d 627,

640 (Tex.App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). Additionally, a plea of true,

standing alone, is sufficient to support a trial court’s revocation of community s upervis ion. See Hays v. State , 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex.App.

— San Antonio 1996,5 no pet.) (holding that a plea of “true” to any violation can by itself support a rev ocation).

THE TRIAL COURT ACTED WITHIN ITS DISCR ETIO N IN REVOKING APPELLANT’S COMMUNITY SUPERVISI ON.

A. There Was Legally Sufficient Evidence to Support the Revocation.

By way of a written motion to proceed to final adjudication, Mr. Rolling was

a l leged to have violated the terms of his community supervision. (I CR 71 ). The

application included t he following allegations:

Application Paragraph Allegation
I Identity of Defendant
II Failure to Submit to Urinalysis (Abandoned at tr i al)
III Failure to Pay for a Urinalysis
IV

- VI Failure to Pay Various Fees and Costs

VII Failure to Report
VIII Fail ure to Complete Outpatient Treatment

IX Failure to Attend AA Meetings

(I CR 71

- 75 ). To all paragraph s but paragraphs VII and IX, plea s of “true” were

entered. ( I CR 86 ). Thus, if the pleas of “true” were entered freely, knowingly,

and voluntarily, th e trial court had sufficient evidence to revoke Mr. Rolling’s

community superv i sion. Hays , 933 S.W.2d at 661.6 1. The Plea

Before accepting his plea, the trial court advised Mr. Rolling as to the co nsequences of entering his plea, including the potenti al range of punishment, and

also advised him of his right to remain silent and his right to have a hearing on the

allegations at issue. ( I V RR 4

- 22 ). After having been so advised, Mr. Rolling pe rsist ed in his desire to enter plea s of “true” and gave no i ndication that he was doing

so involuntarily. ( Id

. ); see Sims v. State , 326 S.W.3d 707, 713 (Tex.App.

—

Texarkana 2010, pet. struck) ( citing Mendez v. State , 138 S.W.3d 334, 350

(Tex.Crim.App. 2004)) (holding that challenges to the voluntariness of a plea m ust

be raised before the trial court in order to preserve the error for appeal); see also

T EX

. R. A PP

. P ROC . 33.1(a)(1). Finally, could any error be advanced regarding the

trial court’s admonishments, such error would be non

- constitutional error su b ject

t o a harm analysis and, given the record before the Court, Mr. Rolling could not

meet that burden in this case. See Aguirre

- Mata v. State , 125 S.W.3d 473, 474

- 76

(Tex.Crim.App. 2003).

2. Sufficiency of the Evidence

The State must prove allegations in a revocation setting by a preponderance

of the evidence. Cobb v. State , 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). Ev idence, therefore, is sufficient if an analysis of its comparative weight tends to su pport the trial court’s conclusion that at least one c ondition of probation was viola t-7 ed. See Rickels , 202 S.W.3d at 764 (holding that evidence is sufficient to support a

revocation where the greater weight of the credible evidence before the court supports a reasonable belief that a condition of probation h as been violated). More over, a plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support a trial court’s revocation

of community supervision. See , 933 S.W.2d at 661 (holding that a plea of “true” to

any violation can by itself support a revocation). Thus, where the Court finds that

a voluntary plea of true was entered, as was the case here, the evidence is l e gally

sufficient to support the revocation. (V RR 14); Moore v. State , 605 S.W.2d 924,

926 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980); Cole v. State , 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (T ex.Crim.App.

1979); Brooks v. State , 995 S.W.2d 762, 763 (Tex.App.

— San A n tonio 1999, no

pet.). 1

B. Appellant’s Sentence Was Within the Statutory Range of Punishment.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of “cruel and unusual pu nishment.” U.S. C ONST

. A MEND . VIII. The Eighth Amendment is applicable to the

states through the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. C ONST

. A MEND . XIV; Robinson v.

California , 370 U.S. 660, 667, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962).

Here, neither Mr. Rolling nor his trial coun sel raised the issue of cruel or e xcessive punishment at the time sentence was imposed and, therefore, this issue has

1 The record also contains a written stipulation of evidence, signed by Mr. Rolling, offered and

a c cepted by the court at tri al, and admitting to the truth of the allegations made against him. (I CR 84; IV RR 22). Such a written stipulation is, likewise, sufficient to support the trial court’s decision. See Moses v. State , 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979) (a plea of t rue and written stip u lation is sufficient to support revocation).8 likely been waived on appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P ROC

. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Rhoades v.

State , 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Noland v. State , 264 S.W.3d

144, 151

- 52 (Tex.App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d); Castaneda v. State

,
135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex.App.

— Dallas 2003, no pet.); but see Solem v. Helm

,

463 U.S. 277, 288, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 3008

- 09, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) (noting exce pt ion to this general rule if sentence assessed is grossly disproportionate to the

crime). Additionally, the sentence imposed of six years’ confinement was within

the statutory punishment range for the offense and is, consequently, virtually pr esumed not to be constitutionally cruel and unusual. Jordan v. State , 495 S.W.2d

949, 952 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973); Trevino v. State , 174 S.W.3d 925, 928

(Tex.App.

— Corpus Christi 2005, pet. ref’d); see also T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY

C ODE § 481.134(b) (defining possession of a controlled substance, as alleged

, as a

third

- degree felony ); T EX

. P EN C ODE § 12.34 (punishment range for a third degree

felony)

. Further, t hat Mr. Rolling was sentenced below the maximum possible ten

year sentence is also a factor indicating that the sent ence was not excessive or cruel. Bolden v. State , 73 S.W.3d 428, 434 (Tex.App.

— Housto n [1st Dist.] 2002, pet.

ref’d).

Finally, due process requires that the trial court consider the full range of

punishment for an offense and weigh both mitigating and inc riminating evidence in

the assessment of sentence. Ex parte Brown , 158 S.W.3d 449, 4549 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). I n the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, on a ppeal the Court will presume that the trial court did not act arbitrarily and consi dered a ll of the evidence before it. Roman v. State , 145 S.W.3d 316, 319

(Tex.App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d). Given the record before the

Court, this presumption cannot be overcome on direct appeal. 2

C. Appellant Received Effective Assistance of Counsel.

Effective assistance of counsel is to be evaluated under the standard enunc iated in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 105 S.Ct. 1965, 85 L.Ed.2d 344

(1984); see also, Hernandez v. State , 988 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). To

prevail in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1)

that her trial counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonabl eness, and (2) that a reasonable probability exists that, but for trial counsel’s alleged

errors, the re sult would have been different. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 687

- 88. On

appeal, the defendant carries the burden of proving ineffective assistance by a pr eponderance of the evidence. Moore v. State , 694 S.W.2d 528, 531 (Tex.Crim.App.

1985). Finally, trial c ounsel’s performance is not to be judged with the benefit of

hindsight. Miniel v. State , 831 S.W.2d 310, 323 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992).

2 The trial court ordered payment of $173.00 to DPS. (I CR 86). This was pursuant to the orig inal plea agreement agreed to by Mr. Rolling. (I CR 52, 60); cf. Aguilar v. State , 279 S.W.3 d 350, 353

- 54 (Tex.App.

— Austin 2007) (mem. op.); Uresti v. State , 98 S.W.3d 321, 338 (Tex.App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (both noting such fees are generally impressible when ordered as part of a sentence of confinement).10 With this standard in mind, a comprehensive review of the record has been

made of the proceedings including pretrial matters , Mr. Rolling’s original plea, the

revocation hearing, and the arguments of counsel. Here, that review fails to shows,

given the totality of the representation provided by trial counsel, any basis from

which to argue that ineffective assistance was render ed. See, e.g., Garcia v. State

,
57 S.W.3d 436, 440 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); Thompson v. State , 9 S.W.3d 808, 812

(Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Jackson v. State , 877 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex.Crim.App.

1994).

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

As counsel was unable to raise any argua ble issues for appeal, he is required

to move for leave to withdraw. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503

(Tex.Crim.App. 1991).

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, counsel prays that the Court,

after af fording Mr. Rolling the opportunity to review the rec ord and file a pro se

brief should he desire to do so, accept this brief and grant the attached Motion to

Wit h draw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, 87 S.Ct.

1396 (1967).11 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson Texas Bar No. 24046139 112 East Line, Suite 310 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 595

- 6070 Facsimile: (866) 387

- 0152

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of this brief was delivered to counsel fo r

the State by efile on this the 13th day of August 2015

.

/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson12 CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL

The attorney’s role as an advocate requires that I support my client’s appeal

to the best of my ability. Anders v. Califor nia , 386 U.S. 738. I, Austin Reeve

Jackson, counsel of record in this appeal, do hereby state that I have diligently

searched the entire record in this cause. I have researched the law applicable to the

facts and issues contained therein, and it is my pr ofessional opinion that the record

reflects no reversible error. In conformity with the applicable law pertaining to an

appeal of this nature, I have set forth any potential grounds of error and have

briefed them to the extent possible. I have further ca used a copy of this brief to be

served by certified mail on Appellant, accompanied by a letter informing Appellant

of the right to examine the record for the purpose of filing a pro se brief.

/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that this document complies with the requirements o f Rule 9.4 and

consists of 2,332 words.

/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson