Nos. 06-15-00138-CR; 06-15-00139-CR

In the

Sixth Court of Appeals

at Texarkana, Texas

_______________________

Adeli Medina Carranza, 

Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas, 

Appellee.

_______________________________

On Appeal from the 

6

th District Court of Lamar County

Hon. William Harris, Presiding

_______________________________

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

(IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANDERS V. CALIRFORNIA)

DON BIARD

STATE BAR NO. 24047755

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

ACCEPTED

06-15-00138-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

12/14/2015 3:33:49 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/14/2015 3:33:49 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
1

PREAMBLE

I have submitted this brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967) and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). After having 

carefully examined this record and after having researched the relevant issues and 

case law, I have concluded that this appeal presents only legally frivolous issues. 

Therefore, I request the Court’s permission to withdraw as attorney of record and 

to allow Appellant, Adeli Medina Carranza, to file any further briefs he deems 

necessary.
2

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Defendant Below

Appellant in this Court

Adeli Medina Carranza

Counsel for Appellant:

Don Biard (on appeal)

State Bar No. 24047755

38 First Northwest

Paris, Texas 75460

Tel: (903)785-1606

Fax: (903)785-7580

David C. Turner, Jr. (at trial)

State Bar No. 20337000

1116 Lamar Avenue

Paris, Texas 75460

Tel: (903)785-8511

Fax: (903)785-8513

Appellee in this Court

The State of Texas

Counsel for Appellee:

Lamar County District and County Attorney’s Office

119 N. Main Street

Paris, Texas 75460

Tel: (903)737-2458

Fax: (903)737-2455
3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preamble....................................................................................................................1

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

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

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

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

Issues Presented.....................................................................................5

Procedural History...............................................................................6-7

Facts..............................................................................................8-9

Argument and Authorities..................................................................10-15

Prayer..............................................................................................16

Certificate of Service............................................................................17

Certificate of Compliance with TRAP 9.4(i)(3)......................................................18
4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Caselaw

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).............................................1,16

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)..............................1,16

Statutes

Tex. Pen. Code §12.42...............................................................................................6

Tex. Pen. Code §46.04 ............................................................................6

Tex. Health & Safety Code §481.115......................................................6

Tex. Health & Safety Code §481.134......................................................6

Tex. Govt. Code §25.0003.......................................................................................10

Tex. Govt. Code §25.1412.......................................................................................13

Rules of Procedure

Tex. Code Crim. Pro. Art. 26.13..........................................................11
5

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the Case: Guilty plea to one charge of Possession of a 

Controlled Substance in a Drug Free Zone and one 

charge of Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a 

Felon

Trial Court: The Honorable William Harris

6

th District Court, Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court Disposition: The trial court accepted Appelant’s guilty plea, 

found Appellant guilty of the charged offenses, 

and sentenced Appellant to 18 years’ 

imprisonment.

ISSUES PRESENTED

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

Any arguable points that could exist would arise from Appellant’s guilty plea 

and/or his subsequent sentencing. Thus, the questions raised in this Anders appeal 

are:

I. Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s request for new trial 

counsel?

II. Whether the trial court reversibly erred at Appellant’s guilty plea?

III. Whether the trial court reversibly erred at Appellant’s sentencing?
6

PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

On February 12, 2015, a grand jury indicted Appellant for unlawful 

possession of a firearm by a felon, a third degree felony in violation of Texas Penal 

Code §46.04.

2

 On April 5, 2015, a grand jury indicted Appellant for Possession of 

Methamphetamine in an amount more than one gram but less than four grams 

within 1000 feet of a school, also a third degree felony in violation of Texas Health 

and Safety Code §481.115 and §481.134.

3 Appellant was also alleged to have been 

a repeat offender under the provisions of Texas Penal Code 12.42(b).4 

On June 19, 2015, Appellant plead guilty to the charged offenses and pled 

true to the drug free zone finding.

5

 The plea of guilty was made pursuant to a plea 

bargain in which the defendant would have the trial judge assess punishment. 

There was no cap placed on the permitted punishment.

6

 On July 8, 2015, a 

sentencing hearing was held and the court sentenced Appellant to 10 years’

imprisonment on the unlawful possession of a firearm charge and 18 years’

 

1 All references to the record on appeal are made in the following manner: CR, pg.# and RR, 

pg.#. CR designates the Clerk’s Record and RR designates the Reporter’s Record, followed by 

the particular page in that record. CR, Vol. 1, designates the Clerk’s Record in Cause No. 

26122. CR, Vol. 2, designates the Clerk’s Record in Cause No. 26186.

2 CR, Vol. 1, pg. 7

3 CR, Vol. 2, pg. 11

4 CR, Vol. 2, pg. 14

5 RR, Vol. 2, pg. 28, 34

6 CR, Vol. 1, pg. 45
7

imprisonment on the possession of methamphetamine charge. The sentences were 

ordered to run concurrently.

7

 Appellant timely filed notice of appeal.8

 

7 RR, Vol. 3, pg. 116

8 CR, Vol. 1, pg. 69
8

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In January 2015, Leigh Foreman, a detective with the Paris Police 

Department, received information that someone was selling drugs from a room at a 

local hotel. That hotel is located near a daycare and preschool as well as an 

elementary school.9

On January 19, 2015, Detective Foreman and another detective went to the 

hotel to investigate.10 Detective Foreman knocked on the door of the one rooms at 

the hotel and found Appellant inside.11 Detective Foreman testified he noticed the 

odor of marijuana coming from inside the room.12

Detective Foreman talked to Appellant in the doorway of the room. At some 

point, they became engaged in a struggle.13 During the struggle, Foreman noticed 

Appellant kept reaching towards a trash can with his right hand.14 Foreman 

eventually subdued Appellant. 

A search of Appellant’s room uncovered two handguns – a .38 caliber 

revolver in a trash can by the door and a .380 semi-automatic handgun in the

 

9 RR, Vol. 3. Pg. 9-10

10 RR, Vol. 3, pg. 9

11 RR, Vol. 3, pg. 13

12 RR, Vol. 3, pg. 13

13 RR, Vol. 3, pg. 14

14 RR, Vol. 3, pg. 15
9

opposite corner of the room.15 The detectives also found 1.36 grams of 

methamphetamine in the room.16

 

15 RR, Vol. 3, pg. 18

16 RR, Vol. 3, pg. 22
10

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Appellate counsel has reviewed the record thoroughly and has failed to 

identify any legally non-frivolous issues. The only areas in which arguable issues 

could arise would be: (1) the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s request for new 

trial counsel; (2) the guilty plea; and (3) the sentencing.

The record does not show that the trial court erred in failing to appoint 

Appellant new trial counsel. The record shows the trial court substantially 

complied with Tex. Code Crim. Pro. Art. 27.13 and Art. 26.13 when accepting 

Appellant’s plea. The trial court also issued a sentence within the permissible 

range of punishment, and within the parameters of Appellants’s plea bargain, when

it sentenced Appellant to 18 years’ imprisonment.
11

ARGUMENT

I. Whether the trial court reversibly erred in failing to appoint Appellant a 

different attorney?

Analysis

Prior to entering his plea, Appellant asked the trial court to appoint him new 

trial counsel.17 The trial court denied this request.

The record contains insufficient evidence to make a good faith argument that 

Appellant’s appointed trial counsel was ineffective or that the trial court erred in 

failing to appoint Appellant new trial counsel.18

 

17 RR, Vol. 2, pg. 5

18 RR, Vol. 2, pgs. 5-11
12

II. Whether the trial court reversibly erred in accepting Appellants’s guilty 

plea?

Analysis

Appellate counsel has reviewed the record in detail and has identified no 

action or inaction on the trial court’s part that suggests harmful error during the 

plea admonishments. Nor has counsel identified any aspect of the plea hearing that 

would suggest Appellant’s plea was involuntary. In fact, the record shows that 

both the trial judge and Appellant’s trial counsel spent considerable time on the 

record informing Appellant about the effect of a guilty plea.

19

 The trial court 

fulfilled all of the requirements of Article 26.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

when accepting Appellant’s plea. These admonishments were given orally by the 

judge. 20 In addition, these admonishments were made in writing and signed by 

Appellant and his attorney.21

This Court’s review of the plea hearing will confirm that the trial court 

properly inquired into the necessary relevant areas before accepting Appellant’s 

plea. If the trial court omitted some necessary admonishments or inquiries, those 

omissions were harmless.

 

19 RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 11-23

20 RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 26-37

21 CR, Vol 1, pgs. 45-56; CR, Vol. 2, pgs. 27-38; also see Tex. Code Crim. Pro. Art. 26.13(d)
13

If a trial court fails to substantially comply with Article 26.13, a harm 

analysis is conducted under Tex. R. App. Pro. 44.2(b). Under that analysis, any 

error that does not affect the substantial rights of the accused must be disregarded. 

Viewed against the backdrop of its more-than-substantial compliance with Article 

26.13, the trial court’s actions to do not give rise to any non-frivolous appellate 

challenge.
14

III. Whether the trial court reversibly erred at Appellant’s sentencing?

Analysis

a. Jurisdiction of the Trial Court

Appellant’s case was assigned to the 6th District Court. However, his guilty 

plea and sentencing hearing were heard by Judge William Harris, presiding judge 

of the Lamar County Court at Law. 

By statute, the judge of the Lamar County Court at Law has jurisdiction to 

accept guilty pleas in all felony cases.22 Further, the judge of the Lamar County 

Court at Law may exchange benches with a judge of a district court and act in any 

manner pending before the district court.23

b. Disproportionate Sentence

Appellant was sentenced to serve 18 years’ in prison on the possession of 

methamphetamine charge and 10 years’ in prison on the unlawful possession of a 

firearm charge. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Appellant faced a minimum sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment and a 

maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment for the drug charge and 10 years’

imprisonment for the firearm charge. This amounted to an effective maximum 

sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment if the maximum punishment had been assessed 

on each charge and the sentences had been ordered to run consecutively. 

 

22 Tex. Govt. Code §25.1412(a)(1)(C)

23 Tex. Govt. Code §25.1412(n)
15

The trial court’s sentence of 18 year’s imprisonment fell roughly halfway 

between the minimum and maximum possible sentences. There is no evidence that 

this sentence exceeds those given for similar crimes in this jurisdiction. Further, 

there were several aggravating factors for the trial court to consider including

Appellant’s criminal history, Appellant’s struggle with a police officer during the 

arrest, and Appellant’s perceived lack of candor during his testimony.24

Considering all of the above, counsel for Appellant is unable to make a good 

faith argument that Appellant’s sentence was excessive on a constitutional 

dimension.

 

24 RR, Vol. 4, pg. 114; RR, Exhibits 8-11
16

PRAYER

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

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

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

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

accordingly.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Don Biard_________________

Don Biard

State Bar No. 24047755

McLaughlin, Hutchison & Biard, LLP

38 First Northwest

Paris, Texas 75460

Tel: (903)785-1606

Fax: (903)785-7580

Counsel for Appellant
17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on December 14, 2015 a copy of the foregoing Appellant’s Brief was 

served to the following parties by the method indicated below.

/s/ Don Biard //

Don Biard

Via Email and Hand Delivery

Hon. Gary Young

Lamar County District Attorney’s Office

119 N. Main Street

Paris, Texas 75460

Tel: (903)737-2458

Fax: (903)737-2455

Via Certified Mail RRR

Adeli Medina Carrana #02012148

Hutchins Unit

1500 E. Langdon Rd.

Dallas, TX 75241
18

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULE OF 

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.4(i)(3)

__________________________________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Pursuant to Rule 9.4(i)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

Counsel for Appellant files this certification that Appellant’s brief is a computergenerated document that contains 1,980 words. Counsel further certifies that he 

relied on the word count of the computer program used to prepare this document.

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Don Biard //

Don Biard

State Bar No. 24047755

McLaughlin, Hutchison & Biard

38 First Northwest

Paris, Texas 75460

Tel: (903)785-1606

Fax: (903)785-7580

Attorney for Appellant