### No. 12

- 14

- 00349

- CR and 12

- 14

- 00354

- CR

IN THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS

RACHEL MICHELLE KIRKSEY
Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee

On Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 114

- 0777

- 14 and 114

- 0778

- 14

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

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

- 6070 Facsimile: (866) 387

- 0152 ACCEPTED 12-14-00349-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 2/5/2015 12:53:31 PM CATHY LUSK CLERKii IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Att orney for Appellant
Appellate Counsel: Austin Reeve Jackson 112 East Line, Suite 310 Tyler, TX 75702

Trial Counsel: A.M. Thompson 2108 South Wall Ave. Tyler, TX 75701
Attorney for the State on Appeal

Michael J. West Assistant District Attorney, Smith County 4th Floor, Courthouse 100 North 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
I SSUE PRESENTED

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 2
STATEMENT OF FACTS

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 2
PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION OF THE RECORD

................................ ................................ . 3
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

................................ ................................ .............................. 4
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 t o 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
CERTIFICATE 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. Califor nia
,

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

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

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 :

A guirre

- Mata v. State , 125 S.W.3d 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)

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

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)

................................ ................................ .......... 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)

................................ ................................ ......... 9
Jackson v. State, 877 S.W .2d 768 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994)

................................ ................................ ....... 10v TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CON’T):

Jordan v. State
,

495 S.W.2 d 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 .Crim.App. 1992)

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

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

- 10
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)

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

TEXAS COURTS OF APPEAL:

Bolden v. State
,

73 S.W.3d 428 (Tex.App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2 002)

................................ .................... 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)

................................ .............. 4vi TEXAS COURTS OF APPEAL (CON’T) :
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 )

................................ ........................ 5 , 7
Joseph v. State , 3 S.W.3d 627 (Tex.App

. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1999)

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

Lewis v. State , 195 S.W.3d 205 (Tex.App.

— San Anto nio 2006)

................................ ......................... 5
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.App.

— Texarkana 2010)

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

Trevino v. State
,

174 S.W.3d 925 (Tex.App.

— Corpus Christi 2005)

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

STATUTES AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS :

T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE § 481.115

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

T EX

. P EN

. C ODE § 12.34

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

T EX

. P EN

. C ODE § 12.35

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

T EX

. P EN

. C ODE § 37.09

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

- 9

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 33.1

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 6 , 8vii STATUTES AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS (CON ’ T) :

U.S. C ONST

. A MEND

. VII I

................................ ................................ ................................ 7, 8

U.S

. C ONST

. A MEND

. XIV

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

### No. 12

- 14

- 00349

- CR and 12

- 14

- 00354

- CR

IN THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS

RACHEL MICHELLE KIRKSEY
Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee

On Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 114

- 0777

- 14 and 114

- 0778

- 14

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT:
COMES NOW, Austin Reeve Jackson, attorney for Rachael Kirksey and
files this brief pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and would

show the Court as follows:2 

### STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Rachel Ki rksey seeks to appeal a revocation of community supervision in
two cases before the Court. (I CR1 78; I CR2 75 ). 1 

### After being indicted for the

offenses of Possession of a Controlled Substance and Tampering with Evidence,

M s. Kirksey was placed on commu nity supervision in each case after entering a plea of “guilty” in the 114th District Court of Smith County . ( I CR1 35 ; I CR2

36 ). In November of last year the trail court revoked that community supervision
and imposed in each case a sentence of confinem ent. (I CR1 78 ; I CR2 75 ). Se ntence was pronounced on 6 November 2014 and notice of appeal then timely filed.
(I CR1 78, 84 ; I CR2 75, 81 ).

ISSUE PRESENTED

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

STAT EMENT OF FACTS
Following her indictment for the two cases currently before the court, Ms.
Kirksey elected to enter a plea of “guilty” in each case in exchange for an agreed
recommendation of community supervision. (III RR 12

- 13). In August of last

year the 114th District Court of Smith County accepted those pleas and followed

the recomme n dation in each case. (III RR 20).

1 The Clerk’s Record in cause 12

- 14

- 00349

- CR / 114

- 0777

- 14 is cited as “CR1” and that of 12

- 14

- 00354

- CR / 114

- 0778

- 14 as “CR2.”3 

### Unfortunately, just a few months later Ms

. Kirksey was once again before
the court on an application to revoke. (IV RR 1). To the alleged viola tions made
against her Ms. Kirksey entered pleas of “true.” ( IV RR 4, 11

- 13 ). Finding the
pleas to be freely and knowingly made, and finding that the same established a vi olation of the terms and conditions of her community supervision , the trial court r evoked Ms. Kirksey’s proba tion. (IV RR 30). In the possession case Ms. Kirksey

was sentenced to serve a term of twelve months’ confinement while a term of five
years’ confinement was imposed in the tampering case. ( Id .). Sentence was pr on ounced on 6 November and notice of appeal then timely filed. (I CR1 78, 84 ; I

CR2 75, 81 ).

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 requ ired 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.).4 

### SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Pursuant to the responsibilities and requirements of the governin g code of
professional conduct, a thorough review of the record has been made. Counsel’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.

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 a buse of discretion standard.

Rickels v. State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006); 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 su pport a revocation. Ca nseco v. State , 199 S.W.3d 437, 439 (Tex.App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet.
ref’d). Therefore, in order to prevail an appellant must show that taking the ev i-5 

### dence in the light most favorable to the court’s decision there is insuffi cient 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,

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

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

I. 

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

A. There Was Legally Sufficient Evidence to Support the Revocation.
By way of a written motion to pro ceed to final adjudication, Ms. Kir k s ey was alleged to have viol ated the terms of her community supervision. (I CR1 70 ; I

CR2 69 ). The application included the following allegations:
Application Paragraph Allegation I Identity of Defendant II Failure to Report III Failure to Report IV Failure to Pay Costs and Fee s V Failure to Pay Costs and Fees 2

2 This	allegation	appeared	only	in	cause	114

- 0777

- 14.		(I	CR	72).6 

### ( I

d

. ). To all paragraph s plea s of “true” were entered. ( IV RR 29 ). Thus, if the
pleas of “true” were entered freely, knowingly, and voluntarily, the trial court had

sufficient evidence to revoke Ms. Kirksey’s commun ity supervision. Hays , 933

S.W.2d at 661.

1. The Plea
Before accepting her plea, the trial court advised Ms. Kirksey as to the co nsequences of entering a plea of true , including the potential range of punishment,

and also advised her of the right to rema in silent and the right to have a hearing on
the allegations at issue. ( IV RR 6

- 14). After having been so advised, Ms. Kirksey
persist ed in her desire to enter plea s of “true” and gave no indication that s he was
doing so involunta r ily. ( 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 must

be raised before the tr i al court in order to preserve the er ror 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 admo n ishments, such error would be non

- constitutional error subject
to a harm analysis and, given the record before the Court, Ms. Ki rksey could not

meet that burden in this case. See Aguirre

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

- 76
(Tex.Crim.App. 2003).7 

### 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 condition of probation was viola ted. 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 has been violated). More over, a plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support a trial court’s revocation
of community supervision. See Hays v. State , 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex.App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.) (holding that a plea of “true” to any violation can by
itself support a revocation). Thus, where the C ourt finds that a voluntary plea of
true was entered, as was the case here, the evidence is legally sufficient to support

the revocation. ( I 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 (Tex.Crim.Ap p. 1979); Brooks v. State , 995 S.W.2d 762, 763 (Tex.App.

— San Antonio 1999, no pet.).

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 MEN D 

### . VIII. The Eighth Amendment is applicable to the8 

### 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 Ms. Kirksey nor her trial counsel raised t he issue of cruel or
excessive punishment at the time sentence was imposed and, therefore, this issue
has 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 ption to this general rule if sentence assessed is grossly disproportionate to the
crime). Additionally, the sentence s imposed were not only within the proper range
of punishment for each offense, but also were each one

- half of the potential se ntence Ms. Kirksey was fac ing; a factor tending to weigh against a finding of an
Eighth Amendment violation. 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); Bolden v. State , 73 S.W.3d 428, 4 34 (Tex.App.

— Houston
[1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d) ; see also T EX



### . H EALTH 

### & S AFETY 

### C ODE 

### § 481.115 (d efining po s session of a controlled substance, as alleged , as a state jail felony ); T EX



### .
P EN 

### C ODE 

### § 12.35 (punishment range for a state jail felony ) ; T EX



### . P EN



### . C ODE 

### §9 

### 37.09 (defi n ing tampering with evidence as a third degree felony); T EX



### . P EN



### . C ODE


### § 12.34 (pu n ishment range for a third degree felony).
Finally, due process requires that the trial court consider the full range of
punishment for an offense and weig h both mitigating and incriminating evidence in

the assessment of sentence. Ex parte Brown , 158 S.W.3d 449, 454
(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 arb itrarily and consi dered all 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.

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 result 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.10 

### 1985). Finally, trial counsel’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).
With this standard in mind, a comprehensive review of the record has been
made of the proceedings in cluding pretrial matters, Ms. Kirksey’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 ineffecti ve assistance was rendered. 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 u nable to raise any arguable 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 Ms. Kirksey the oppor tunity to review the record and file a pro se

brief should s 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/ Au stin 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 d elivered to counsel for
the State by facsimile on this the 5th day of February 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. California , 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 i t is my professional 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 caused a copy of this brief to be
served by 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 of Rule 9.4 and
consists of 2,2 8 2 words.

/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson