Page 1 of 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

NO. 06-15-00177-CR

TO THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

MICHAEL DEAN RAGLIN, Appellant.

THE STATE OFTEXAS, Appellee,

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

APPEAL FROM THE 8TH DISTRICT COURT,

HOPKINS COUNTY, SULPHUR SPRINGS, TEXAS the 

Honorable Eddie Northcutt, Presiding Judge

BRYAN WHITE 

Attorney at Law

210 W. Shannon Rd.

Sulphur Springs, TX 75482

Ph: 903-885-1155 Fx: 

903-885-5522 

bryan@roperwhite.co

m SBN: 24081206

Attorney for Appellant

ACCEPTED

06-15-00177-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

12/15/2015 2:19:59 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/15/2015 2:19:59 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
Page 2 of 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

MICHAEL DEAN RAGI-IN

Appellant does not request oral argument.

LIST OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Appellant

Mr. Michael Dean Raglin

TDCJ#02026959

Joe F. Gurney

1385 FM 3328

Palestine, TX 75803

Ph: 903-928-3118

Counsel for Appellant jn Trial Court

Mr. Jonathan Newsom

Attorney at Law

216 Davis St. North

Sulphur Springs, TX 75482

Ph: 903-951-1851

Fax: 903-951-1852

Email: ionathan@newsomlaw.net 

SBN: 24081067

Counsel for Appellant on Appeal

Bryan White

Attorney at Law

210 W. Shannon Rd.

Sulphur Springs, TX 75482
Page 3 of 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

Ph: 903-885-1155

Fax: 903-885-5522

Email: bryan@roperwhite.com

SBN: 24081206

Counsel for State of Texas in Trial Court

Matt Harris

Assistant Criminal District Attorney 

8

th Judicial District Attorney's Office 

100 Main St.

Sulphur Springs, TX 75482

Ph: 903-885-0641

Fax: 903-885-0640

Email: mharris@hopkinscountytx.orq

SBN: 2408314ž

Counsel for State of Texas on Appeal

Matt Harris

Assistant Criminal District Attorney 

8

th Judicial District Attorney's Office 

100 Main St.

Sulphur Springs, TX 75482

Ph: 903-885-0641

Fax: 903-885-0640

Email: mharris@hopkinscountytx.orq 

SBN: 24083142

Trial Judqe

Honorable Eddie Northcutt
Page 4 of 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

Presiding Judge, 8th District 

Court Hopkins County 

Courthouse 118 Church St.

Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482

"h: 903-4384022

Fax: 903-438-4092

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

LIST OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 5

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 7

ISSUES PRESENTED 10

STATEMENT OF FACTS 1 

1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 14

ARGUMENTS 15

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF 31

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 32

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FOR BRIEF 33
Page 5 of 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Anders v. California,

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

Bradfield v. State, 28

42 S.W.3d 350 (Tex.App.—Eastland 2001 , pet. ref'd)

High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978)

Jackson v. State, 28

680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984)

Mays v. State, 10 16

904 S.W.2d 920 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1995, nopet.)

Pollard v. State, 28

2012 WL 5447955, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9306 (Tex.App.—Fort

Worth #02-11-00496-CR, #02-11-00497-CR, #02-11- 00498-CR, 

#021 1-00499-CR, #02-11-00500-CR, 11/8/2012, no pet, Not 

Designated for Publication)

Stafford v. State, 16

813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)
Page 6 of 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

STATUTES

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 4.01 17

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 4.05 17

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 13.18 17

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 132 17

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 39.14 

Texas Health & Safety Code, 481.121

8,12

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 44.2 17,18

US. Constitution, Amend. Vlll 28
Page 7 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case involves a criminal prosecution for possession of marijuana 

in an amount of 50 pounds or less but more than 5 pounds. (CR:5). On July 

20, 2011, Michael Dean Raglin was indicted by a grand jury of Hopkins 

County, Texas for possession of marijuana in an amount of 50 pounds or 

less but more than 5 pounds in violation of Chapter 481 of the Texas Health 

& Safety Code. (CR:5). On July 22, 2011, an order setting bond was set at 

$30,000.00. (CR:6). On August 19, 2011, Mr. Raglin was arraigned and 

executed an Arraignment From. (CRI 1-12).

On January 26, 2012, Mr. Raglin plead guilty to the offense of 

possession of marijuana in an amount of 50 pounds or less but more than 

5 pounds and executed a plea bargain agreement. (CRM 6-27). The terms 

of the plea bargain agreement included a sentence recommendation for 

ten

(10) years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice and for that sentence of confinement to be suspended and Mr. 

Raglin to be placed on community supervision for a period of ten (10) 

years. (CR:24-27). The plea bargain agreement also imposed a fine of

$3,000.00, court costs of $381.00, and restitution of $140.00. (CR:24-27). 

Furthermore, a community supervision order was executed listing the 

terms and conditions of community supervision. (CR:24). Mr. Raglin 

executed

of

Written Plea Admonishments and the Trail Court's Certification of
Page 8 of 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

Defendant's Right of Appeal. (CRM 7-23, 16).

A Motion To Revoke Community Supervision was filed on August 6,

2014 and subsequently withdrawn on November 3, 2014. (CR:28, 30).

Thereafter, a Motion To Revoke Community Supervision was filed on 

August 13, 2015 alleging Mr. Raglin had violated the conditions of his 

community supervision, the details of which were listed in eight (8) 

numbered paragraphs in the State's motion. (CR:32-33). On August 24, 

2015, the 8th Judicial Court of Hopkins County, Texas appointed Jonathan

Newsom to represent Mr. Raglin. (CR:39)-

On September 10, 2015, Mr. Raglin executed Written Plea 

Admonishments on the Motion To Revoke Community Supervision and 

also executed the State's Certificate of Discovery And Defendant's

Acknowledgment of Receipt of Discovery pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. 

PROC. ART. 39.14. (CR:44-47). The Court set the case for sentencing to be 

held on September 21, 2015. (CR:48). On September 21, 2015, The Court 

set the case for trial before the court to be held on September 22, 2015.

(CR:50).

On September 22, 2015, the Court entered a Judgment Revoking 

Community Supervision and assessed punishment in accordance with the 

judgment originally entered - ten (10) years in the Institutional Division of 
Page 9 of 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (CR:51-53). The judgment also 

imposed a fine of $2,941.00 and court-appointed attorney's fees of

$500.00. (CR:51-53, 56). Mr. Raglin executed the Trail Court's Certification 

of Defendant's Right of Appeal. (CR:54).

A Notice of Appeal was timely filed on October 9, 2015 along with a 

Motion to Withdraw by Attomey Jonathan Newsom (CR:58-60), and the 

trial court certified Mr. Raglin's right to appeal on September 22, 2015 

(CR:54). An order appointing Attorney Bryan White for the purpose of 

appeal was filed on October 19, 2015. (CR:61).

ISSUES PRESENTED

No issues are presented for review. This brief is submitted to comply 

with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87

S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), High v. state, 573 S.W.2d 807

(Tex.Crim.App. 1978), and Mays v. state, 904 S.W.2d 920 (Tex.App.—

Fort Worth 1995, no pet).
Page 10

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This case involves a criminal prosecution for possession of marijuana 

in an amount of 50 pounds or less but more than 5 pounds. (CR:5). On July 

20, 2011, Michael Dean Raglin was indicted by a grand jury of Hopkins 

County, Texas for possession of marijuana in an amount of 50 pounds or 

less but more than 5 pounds in violation of Chapter 481 of the Texas Health

& Safety Code. (CR:5). On July 22, 2011, an order setting bond was set at 

$30,000.00. (CR:6). On August 19, 2011, Mr. Raglin was arraigned and 

executed an Arraignment From. (CR:11-12).

On January 26, 2012, Mr. Raglin plead guilty to the offense of 

possession of marijuana in an amount of 50 pounds or less but more than 5 

pounds and executed a plea bargain agreement. (CRM 6-27). The terms of 

the plea bargain agreement included a sentence recommendation for ten

(10) years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice and for that sentence of confinement to be suspended and Mr. 

Raglin to be placed on community supervision for a period of ten (10) 

years. (CR:24-27). The plea bargain agreement also imposed a fine of

$3,000.00, court costs of $381.00, and restitution of $140.00. (CR•.24-27). 

Furthermore, a community supervision order was executed listing the 

terms and conditions of community supervision. (CR:24). Mr. Raglin 

executed

of33

Written Plea Admonishments and the Trail Court's Certification of

Defendant's Right of Appeal. (CRM 7-23, 16).
Page 11

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

A Motion To Revoke Community Supervision was filed on August 

6,

2014 and subsequently withdrawn on November 3, 2014. (CR:28, 30). 

Thereafter, a Motion To Revoke Community Supervision was filed on 

August 13, 2015 alleging Mr. Raglin had violated the conditions of his 

community supeMsion, the details of which were listed in eight (8) 

numbered paragraphs in the State's motion. (CR:32-33). On August 24, 

2015, the 8th Judicial District Court of Hopkins County, Texas appointed

Jonathan Newsom to represent Mr. Raglin. (CR:39).

On September 10, 2015, Mr. Raglin executed Written Plea 

Admonishments on the Motion To Revoke Community Supervision and 

also executed the State's Certificate of Discovery and Defendant's

Acknowledgment of Receipt of Discovery pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. 

PROC. ART. 39.14. (CR:44-47). The Court set the case for sentencing to be 

held on September 21, 2015. (CR:48). On September 21, 2015, the Court

set the case for trial before the court to be held on September 22, 2015.

(CR:50).

of33

On September 22, 2015, the Court entered a Judgment Revoking 

Community Supervision and assessed punishment in accordance with the 

judgment originally entered - ten (10) years in the Institutional Division of 
Page 12

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (CR:51-53). The judgment also 

imposed a fine of $2,941.00 and court-appointed attorney's fees of

$500.00. (CR:51-53, 56). Mr. Raglin executed the Trial Court's Certification 

of Defendant's Right of Appeal. (CR:54).

A Notice of Appeal was timely filed on October 9, 2015 along with a 

Motion to Withdraw by Attorney Jonathan Newsom (CR:58-60), and the 

trial court certified Mr. Raglin's right to appeal on September 22, 2015 

(CR:54). An order appointing Attorney Bryan White for the purpose of 

appeal was filed on October 19, 2015. (CR:61).

of33
Page 13

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS

This brief is submitted for the purpose of compliance with the 

requirements of Anders v. California, supra, and related cases.
Page 14 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

of 

ARGUMENTS

1. The Anders Brief

In the case ofAnders v. California, supra, the United States 

Supreme Court set forth the standard for cases in which an 

appellant's counsel deems the appeal to be "fitm€':

Of course, if counsel finds his case to be whollyfrivolous, after 

a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court 

and request permission to withdraw. That request must, 

however, be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the 

record that might arguably support the appeal. A copy of 

counsel's briefshould be furnished the indigent and time 

allowed him to raise any points that he chooses; the court—not 

counsel—then proceeds, after a full examination of all the 

proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous. If it 

so finds it may grant counsel's request to withdraw and dismiss 

the appeal insofar as federal requirements are concerned, or 

proceed to a decision on the merits, if state law so requires. On 

the other hand, if it finds any of the legal points arguable on 

their merits (and therefore not frivolous) it must, prior to 

decision, afford the indigent the assistance of counsel to argue 

the appeal.

Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400.

In High v. State, supra, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 

elaborated on these requirements, stating that the trial court makes the 

initial determination regarding the sufficiencyofcounsel's Anders brief (see 

high v. State, supra, 573 S.W.2d at 808), and further stating:
Page 15

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

of33

As applied to Texas p ro ce d u re , court-appointed counsel 

should, in his brief, refer to anything in the record that might 

arguably support the appeal and make ready references to the 

record and legal authorities in order to assist the trial court, in 

the first instance, to determine whethera new trial should be 

granted Ifthetrial court finds any of the legal points arguable on 

their merits, and therefore not frivolous, it must, prior to 

decision, afford the indigent the assistance of counsel in order 

to argue those points.

High v. State, supra, 573 S.W.2d at 811. With regard to the contents 

of the Anders brief, the Court stated:

We recognize that there are cases in which counsel 

cannot, in good faith, advance any arguable grounds of 

error. However, in those instances, we require the brief 

of counsel to contain a professional evaluation of the 

record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no 

arguable grounds to be advanced.

High v. State, supra, 573 S.W.2d at 812. The Anders brief should 

contain

"ready references not only to the record, but also to germane legal 

authorities." Mays v. State, supra, 904 S.W.2d at 922. Further, the briefing 

attorney "should educate the reviewing court with all the salient facts and 

the relevant legal authorities, and present and analyze the critical issues in 

the case." Id Finally, the Court of Criminal Appeals has held that if arguable 

grounds for appeal are found, a new defense counsel should be appointed 

to represent the appellant. Stafford v. State,
Page 16 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).

of

2. Jurisdiction and Venue

Jurisdiction for felony offenses lies in the district courts and the 

criminal district courts. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ART. 4.01 and 4.05.

This case was held in the 8th District Court, Hopkins County, Texas 

(CR:5,11 ,25-26, 51-53), which has jurisdiction for felony offenses.

Thus, jurisdiction was proper.

Chapter 13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states that an 

offense of possession of marijuana may be prosecuted in the county 

where the offense was committed or with the consent of the defendant 

in a county that is adjacent to and in the same judicial district as the 

county where the offense was committed. TEX. CODE CRM. PROC. ART. 

13.22 Therefore, venue is proper in the county in which the offense was 

committed. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ART. 13.18. The indictment alleges 

that the offense was committed "in the County of Hopkins," in Texas. 

(CR:5). The information contained within the Clerk's file, including, but 

not limited to, the executed plea bargain agreement established that the 

offense occurred in Hopkins County, Texas. (CR:5, 11, 25-26, 51-53). 

Therefore, venue was proper in Hopkins County. In addition, Rule 44.2(c) 
Page 17

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that the court of 

appeals must presume that venue was proved jn the trial court unless

of33

venue was disputed in the trial court or the record affirmatively shows 

that venue was not proven. TEX. R. App. PROC. 44.2(c)(1). The record 

does not indicate that venue was disputed or unproven in this case.

3. Adverse Pre-Trial Rulings

No evidence was provided to establish any adverse pre-trail rulings.

In fact, the State agreed to withdraw the month of May as far as

Paragraph 5 in the State's Motion to Revoke Community Supervision. 

And there was a stipulation of true by Appellant to all remaining 

paragraphs in the State's Motion to Revoke Community Supervision as 

well as a stipulation as to the Appellant's criminal history. Regarding 

stipulations, Appellant signed the section on the Written Plea

Admonishments on Motion to Revoke Community Supervision stating 

he consented to oral and written stipulations of evidence. (CR: 46). 

No evidence was provided to establish any conflict of interest 

between trial counsel and Appellant. There were no adverse pre-trial 

rulings.

4. Adverse Trial Rulings

During the guilt/innocence phase of trial, the State called no
Page 18 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

witnesses. (RR Vol. 3). No objections to preserve error were made for the 

record concerning the testimony of any witnesses. (RR Vol. 3). The

State introduced (2) exhibits — Written Plea Admonishments On Motion

of 
Page 19 of 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

To Revoke Community Supervision Or Motion To Proceed To

Adjudication and a recorded jail call made by Appellant. (RR Vol. 4: 4-6,

7; RR Vol. 3: 7-10). The exhibits were admitted without objection. (RR Vol. 

3: 7-10). No error was preserved for review.

Trial counsel called (2) witnesses. (RR Vol. 3: 10-44). No objections 

were made by the State concerning the testimony of any witnesses, 

Appellant, Michael Dean Raglin, and Appellant's wife, Tina Raglin. (RR

Vol. 3). Trial counsel introduced (2) exhibits — Employment

Documentation and Order of Driver's License Reinstatement. (RR Vol. 4:5-

7; RR Vol. 3: 19-26). The exhibits were admitted without objection.

(RR Vol. 3: 19-26).

5. Jury Selection

Appellant waived his right to a jury. (CR:16, 17-23, 25-26, 45-47,

51-54). No issue of reviewable error is presented for jury selection.

6. Sufficiency of the Guilty Verdict and Sentence

On January 26, 2012, Mr. Raglin plead guilty to the offense of 

possession of marijuana in an amount of 50 pounds or less but more than 5 

pounds and executed a plea bargain agreement. (CRM 6-27). The terms of 

the plea bargain agreement included a sentence recommendation for ten 

(10) years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice and for that sentence of confinement to be 

suspended and Mr. Raglin to be placed on community supewision for 

a period of ten
Page 20 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

(10) years. (CR:25-26). The plea bargain agreement also imposed a fine 

of $3,000.00, court costs of $381.00, and restitution of $140.00. 

(CR:24, 25-26, 27). Furthermore, a community supervision order was 

executed listing the terms and conditions of community supervision. 

(CR:24). Mr. Raglin executed Written Plea Admonishments and the 

Trial Court's

Certification of Defendant's Right of Appeal. (CRM 7-23, 16). The Written 

Plea Admonishments included a section titled "Community Supervision" 

that states "If the Court grants you community supervision as opposed to 

deferred adjudication, upon violation of any imposed condition, you may 

be arrested and detained as provided by law. You will then be entitled to a 

hearing limited to the determination by the Court, without a jury, whether 

to revoke your community supervision and sentence you to confinement 

for a period of time not to exceed that originally assessed by the Court at 

the time you were found guilty. If you receive community supervision in 

more than one case, future revocations resulting in confinement in 

I.D.D.C.J. or

S.J.D.D.C.J. may be cumulated. (CR: 19). Appellant and his attorney signed 

those admonishments. (CR: 20-23).

of

On January 26, 2012, the Appellant and his attorney also signed 

the Trial Court's Certification of Defendant's Right of Appeal certifying 
Page 21 of 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

that the defendant has no right of appeal and had waived the right of 

appeal. (CFR:

16).

On September 10, 2015, prior to any judgment being entered, the 

Appellant was admonished by the Court on the record. (RR Vol. 2: 5-13). In 

relevant parts, the Court admonished the Appellant on his right to a 

contested hearing. (RR Vol. 2: 6-8). The Court also advised the Appellant on 

the various options available to the Court. (RR Vol. 2: 6-8). The Appellant 

waived his rights and plead true to violating his probation. (RR Vol. 8, 10). 

The Appellant agreed that he was making his decisions freely, voluntarily, 

knowingly, and competently. (RR Vol. 8-9). The State admitted State's

Exhibit 1 (plea papers signed January 26, 2012) with no objection. (RR: Vol. 

2: 10-12). The Appellant stated he understood what he was signing each time 

he signed. (RR Vol. 2: 11-12). The Court accepted Appellant's plea of true and 

found it to be true that Appellant did violate the conditions of his probation 

as alleged by the State after they have abandoned that one month in 

Paragraph 5. (RR Vol. 2: 12). The Court found that the decisions made by 

Appellant were made freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and competently. (RR

Vol. 2: 12).
Page 22 of 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

The Appellant signed Written Plea Admonishments On Motion To 

Revoke Community Supervision Or Motion To Proceed To Adjudication 

stating "l swear my true name is MICHAEL DEAN RAGI-IN and I am one and 

the same person that was placed on community supervision in this cause. I 

further state that each and every allegation contained in the State's motion 

to revoke my community supervision or to adjudicate my guilt is true. When 

I was placed on community supervision, I was given a copy of the conditions 

of my community supervision and they were explained to me. I understood 

the conditions of community supervision at the time I was placed on 

community supervision, and I understand then, now, and at all intervening 

times. I swear to all of the foregoing and I further swear that all testimony I 

give in this case will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, 

so help me God." (CR: 46). The Appellant also signed the section stating "l 

consent to oral and written stipulations of evidence." (CR: 46).

On September 22, 2015, the Court entered a Judgment Revoking 

Community Supervision and assessed punishment in accordance with the 

judgment originally entered - ten (10) years in the Institutional Division of 

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (CR:51-53, 25-26). The 

judgment also imposed a fine of $2,941.00 and court-appointed attorney's 

fees of $500.00. (CR:51-53, 56). Appellant executed the Trial Court's

Certification of Defendants Right of Appeal on this day as well. 

(CR:54).

7. Sufficiency of the Indictment and Evidence of Guilt

The indictment in Appellant's case alleges that he

. on or about the 6th day of April, 2009, and beforethe 

presentment of this indictment, in the County of Hopkins, State of 
Page 23 of 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

Texas, did then and there intentionally or knowingly possess a 

usable quantity of marijuana in an amount of 50 pounds or less 

but more than five pounds. (CR:5)

Chapter 481.121 of the Texas Health & Safety Code defines the 

offense of possession of marijuana in an amount of 50 pounds or less 

but more than 5 pounds.

That statute states, in relevant part:

(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly or 

intentionally possesses a usable quantity of marijuana... (b)(4) 

An offense under Subsection (a) is a felony of the third degree 

if the amount of marihuana possessed is 50 pounds or less but 

more than 5 pounds.

The indictment in Appellant's case alleges each of these 

elements.

(CR:5). Thus, the indictment sufficiently alleged the offense.

Appellant plead guilty to the offense and executed a plea bargain 

agreement. (CRM 7-27). Appellant executed Written Plea

Admonishments on January 26, 2012. (CRM 7-23). The Written Plea 

Admonishments include a section labeled "Judicial Confession" that 

states

"Upon my oath I swear that I am the person charged as the defendant in 

the charging instrument; I have read (or have had read to me) the 

indictment or information filed in this case and it has been reviewed with 

me by my attorney and I understand all matters contained therein; I 

committed and am guilty of each and every act as alleged in the charging 
Page 24 of 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

instrument, except those acts expressly waived by the State; all of the facts 

alleged in the charging instrument are true and correct; I am guilty of the 

offense(s) charged as well as all lesser included offenses; any enhancement 

and habitual allegations set forth in the Indictment, if any, are true and 

correct, expect those expressly waived by the State; I further admit any 

guilt on any unadjudicated offenses set forth in the plea recommendation, 

if any, and request the Court to take each into account in determining my 

sentence for the instant offense; I swear to all of the foregoing and further 

swear that all testimony I give in the case will be the truth, the whole truth, 

and nothing but the truth, so help me God." The

Judicial Confession was signed by the Appellant. (CR:21-22).

On September 10, 2015, prior to any judgment being entered, the

Appellant was admonished by the Court on the record. (RR Vol. 2: 5-13). In 

relevant parts, the Court admonished the Appellant on his right to a 

contested hearing. (RR Vol. 2: 6-8). The Court also advised the Appellant on 

the various options available to the Court. (RR Vol. 2: 6-8). The Appellant
Page 25

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

waived his rights and plead true to violating his probation. (RR Vol. 2: 8). 

The Appellant agreed that he was making his decisions freely, voluntarily, 

knowingly, and competently. (RR Vol. 2: 9-10). The State admitted State's

Exhibit 1 (plea papers signed January 26, 2012) with no objection. (RR Vol. 

2: 10-11). The Appellant stated he understood what he was signing each time 

he signed. (RR Vol. 2: 11-12). The Court accepted Appellant's plea of true and 

found it to be true that Appellant did violate the conditions of his probation 

as alleged by the State after they have abandoned that one month in 

Paragraph 5. (RR Vol. 2: 12). The Court found that the decisions made by 

Appellant were made freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and competently. (RR 

Vol. 2: 12).

The Appellant also executed Written Plea Admonishments On

Motion To Revoke Community Supervision Or Motion To Proceed To 

Adjudication on September 10, 2015. (CR.' 45-47). The Appellant 

signed the section stating "l swear my true name is MICHAEL DEAN 

RAGI-IN and I am one and the same person that was placed on 

community supervision in this cause. I further state that each and 

every allegation contained in the State's motion to revoke my 

community supervision or to adjudicate my guilt is true. When I was 

placed on community supervision,

I was given a copy of the conditions of my community supervision and

of33

they were explained to me. I understood the conditions of community 

supervision at the time I was placed on community supervision, and I 

understand then, now, and at all intervening times. I swear to all of the 
Page 26

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

foregoing and I further swear that all testimony I give in this case will be the 

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God." (CR.'

46).

Trial counsel in 2012 did not object to the Written Plea

Admonishments. (CR.' 17-23). Trial counsel in 2015 did not object to the

Written Plea Admonishments On Motion To Revoke Or Motion To 

Proceed To Adjudication. (CR: 45-47). The Clerk's Record does not 

show any fundamental error(s) to which Appellant's trial counsel 

could or should have objected.

8. Trial Counsel's Objection(s) to Fundamental Error

The trial transcript and Clerk's Record do not show any fundamental 

error(s) to which Appellant's trial counsel could or should have objected.

9. Adverse Rulings During Punishment Phase

In the punishment phase of trial, Appellant's trial counsel called 

two witness; Appellant, Michael Dean Raglin (RR Vol 3: 10), and 

Appellant's wife, Tina Raglin (RR Vol. 3: 40). Appellant was admonished 

that he was not required to testify. (RR Vol. 3: 11). Both witnesses 

testified in favor of

of33

a lenient sentence from the Judge for Appellant. (RR Vol. 3: 10-44). 

State's trial counsel did not make any objections to Appellant's trial 

counsel's questionsof either witness, or to their responses. (RR Vol. 
Page 27 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

3: 10-44). After both sides rested and closed at the punishment 

phase, the

Judge deliberated and returned with a sentence of ten (10) years 

confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections — Institutional 

Division, and a fine of $2,941.00 and court-appointed attorney fees of 

$500.00. (RR Vol. 3: 44-55).

The Court did not make any adverse rulings to the defense during 

the punishment phase of trial. (RR Vol. 3). No error was preserved or 

presented for review from the punishment phase of the trial. (RR Vol. 3).

10. Legality of the Sentence

A. Prison Sentence

Based on the evidence presented by the State at trial, 

Appellantwas convicted of possession of marijuana in an amount of 

fifty (50) pounds or less but more than five (5) pounds, and was 

subject to a sentence of two

(2) years to ten (10) years in prison. (CR: 17-20, 25-26, 45-47, 51-53). 

Chapter 481 of the Texas Health & Safety Code. The judge sentenced 

him to ten (10) years in prison. (CR: Vol. 3: 53-54). Since this 

sentence was within the statutory range of two (2) years to ten (10) 

years,

of 
Page 28 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

his sentence was legal. See Bradfield v. State, 42 S.W.3d 350, 354 

(Tex.App.—Eastland 2001, pet. ref'd) ("A penalty within the range of 

punishment established by the legislature will not be disturbed on 

appeal."); see also, Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 

(Tex.Crim.App. 1984).

On the other hand, the Second Court of Appeals has implied 

that a sentence might be reviewable for an abuse of discretion based 

upon the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual 

punishment.

Pollard v. state, 2012 WI-5447955, at *1, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9306

(Tex.App.—Fort Worth #02-11-00496- CR, #02-11-00497-CR, #02-11-

00498-CR, #02-11-00499-CR, #02-11-00500-CR, 11/8/2012, no pet, 

Not Designated for Publication); U.S. Constitution, Amend. Vlll. In 

Pollard, the Court stated, "In general, when the sentence imposed is 

within the proper range of punishment, the trial court has a great deal 

of discretion and the sentence will not bedisturbed on appeal," and 

then held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing 

the appellant to 75 years in prison. Pollard v. State, supra, 2012 WL 

5447955 at *1-2.

In Appellant's case, I believe challenging the sentence as a 

violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual 
Page 29 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

punishment would be frivolous, in view of the nature of the offense 

and the fact that

of

the Appellant agreed to the sentence in the original judgment and 

executed written admonishments on two separate occasions.

Based on the foregoing, I believe it would be frivolous to argue that 

the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence of ten (10) 

years in prison in this case.

B. Court Costs

The trial court's judgment includes $0.00 in court costs. (CR: 51-53)

11. Judgment Accurately Reflects Sentence

The Trial Court's Judgment reflects that Appellant was found guilty

of possession of marijuana in an amount of fifty (50) pounds or less but 

more than five (5) pounds and that it was true that the Appellant violated 

the conditions of his community supervision. (CR: 51-53). The Judgment 

also states that Appellant was sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment 

in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — Institutional Division, and a 

fine of $2,941.00 and court-appointed attorney fees of $500.00. (CR: 5153, 

56). This corresponds with the sentence at the conclusion of the 

punishment phase of the trial. (CR: 25-27, 51-53, 56) (RR Vol. 3: 53-54).
Page 30 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

12. Effective Assistance of Counsel

Appellate counsel has fully and thoroughly examined the trial 

transcript and Clerk's Record. No evidence of ineffective assistance of

of 

counsel is present in the record. Trial counsel thoroughly and diligently 

presented witness testimony on Appellant's behalf at the punishment 

phase and the Judge handed down a sentence; a sentence that was in 

accordance with the judgment originally entered and agreed to by the 

defendant after executing written admonishments. (CR: 51-53) (RR Vol. 3: 

51-53. Furthermore, in the Written Plea Admonishments To Revoke 

Community Supervision, the Appellate signed indicating he was totally 

satisfied with the representation given to him by his counsel and that he 

provided effective and competent representation. (CR: 46). Accordingly,

Appellant received effective assistance of counsel at trial.
Page 31 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

of 

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Based on the foregoing discussion, and after a conscientious 

examination of the appellate record and relevant case law, I believe 

that any issue that could be raised in this case would be wholly 

frivolous, and I therefore request this Honorable Court's permission to 

withdraw as counsel for Appellant.

I therefore respectfully pray that this Honorable Court would grant 

my Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel and relieve me from further 

responsibility in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

/47-Jd¿-a-r

BRYAN WHITE

Attorney at Law

210 W. Shannon Rd.

Sulphur Springs, TX 75482

Ph: 903-885-1155

Fax: 903-885-5522

Email: bryan@roperwhite.com SBN: 

24081206

Attorney for Appellant

MICHAEL DEAN RAGI-IN
Page 32 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

of
Page 33

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Per Rule 9.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, I certify that 

the foregoing brief contains 5411 words—exclusive of those portions 

which are excludable per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(1 

based on the word count of Microsoft Word word-processing software, 

which was used to prepare this document. I further certify that the 

document uses the Arial 14-point font.

BRYA WHITE

Attorney at Law

210 W. Shannon Rd.

Sulphur Springs, TX 75482

Ph: 903-885-1155

Fax: 903-885-5522

Email: bryan@roperwhite.com SBN: 

24081206

Attorney for Appellant

MICHAEL DEAN RAGI-IN
Page 34

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

of33

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FORBRIEF

As Attorney for the Appellant, MICHAEL DEAN RAGI-IN, I certify that 

a true and correct copy of the foregoing brief was delivered to the counsel 

listed below, at the address indicated, on December 15, 2015, by eFile 

service.

Counsel for the State of Texas

Matt Harris

Assistant Criminal District Attorney 

8th Judicial District Attorney's Office 

100 Main St.

Sulphur Springs, TX 75482

Email: mharris@hopkinscountytx.orq SBN: 

24083142

And I further certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

brief was mailed via first-class certified U.S. mail, return receipt 

requested, to the party listed below, at the address indicated, on

December 15, 2015.

Appellant

Michael Dean Raglin

TDCJ#02026959

Joe F. Gurney

1385 FM 3328

Palestine, TX 75803
Page 35

BRIEF PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA (Michael Dean Raglin v. State of Texas)

BRYAN WHITE

Attorney for Appellant,

MICHAEL DEAN RAGI-IN

of33