Abatement Order filed December 19, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00749-CR

____________

CHARLESTON ROSHUN COBBIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1506318

ABATEMENT ORDER

Charleston Roshun Cobbin pleaded guilty to delivery of a controlled 

substance. Under the terms of a plea-bargain agreement between appellant and the 

State, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on 

community supervision for five years. The State subsequently filed a motion to 

adjudicate appellant’s guilt. After holding a hearing on the motion, the trial court 

granted the motion, adjudicated appellant guilty, and sentenced him to 10 years’ 

imprisonment.
2

Appellant’s appointed attorney, Ted Doebbler, filed a one-issue brief in April 

2019 that contended appellant’s original plea of guilty was involuntary. A defendant 

placed on deferred adjudication community supervision may raise issues relating to 

the original plea proceeding only in an appeal taken when deferred adjudication 

community supervision is first imposed. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661–62 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1999). That is true even when challenging the voluntariness of the 

plea. Arreola v. State, 207 S.W.3d 387, 389 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, 

no pet.); Alexander v. State, No. 14-08-00456-CR, 2009 WL 3365875, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 10, 2009, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (not 

designated for publication).

Appellant has the right to appeal issues relating to adjudication, but Doebbler

did not raise any such issue. If appointed counsel determines there are no nonfrivolous issues on appeal and the appellant does not want to dismiss the appeal 

voluntarily, counsel must follow the procedures laid out in Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967). For that reason, in July 2019 we abated the appeal for appellant to 

decide whether he wishes to continue with this appeal and, if so, for Doebbler to file 

a brief that raises an issue regarding the adjudication or complies with Anders.

Doebbler filed an amended brief on December 1, 2019. Again, the sole issue 

in the brief concerns the voluntariness of appellant’s original plea of guilty. The brief 

does not raise an issue regarding the adjudication nor does it comply with Anders. 

Under these circumstances, appellant is entitled to new appointed counsel.

We ORDER the judge of the 248th District Court to conduct a hearing at 

which appellant, Doebbler, and counsel for the State shall participate, either in 

person or by video teleconference, to determine whether appellant desires to 

prosecute his appeal. If he does desire to prosecute his appeal, the judge shall appoint 

new appellate counsel for him. The judge shall see that a record of the hearing is 
3

made, shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shall order the trial 

clerk to forward a record of the hearing and a supplemental clerk’s record containing 

the findings and conclusions. Those records shall be filed with the clerk of this court 

by January 31, 2020.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket after 

appellant’s brief is filed or the expiration of 60 days, whichever is first. The court 

will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.