Court Opinion

ID: 9365097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 11:09:56.309221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.185372
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-22-00072-CR

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

              TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                    TYLER, TEXAS

JOHN SANDOVAL,                                 §      APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
APPELLANT

V.                                             §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                       §      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                     PER CURIAM
       John Sandoval appeals following the revocation of his deferred adjudication community
supervision. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1969). We affirm.

                                        BACKGROUND
       Appellant was charged by indictment with burglary of a habitation and pleaded “guilty.”
The trial court deferred finding Appellant “guilty” and placed him on community supervision for
six years.
       Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision and
to adjudicate guilt, alleging that Appellant violated certain terms and conditions of his
community supervision. Specifically, the State contended that Appellant violated the terms of
his community supervision as follows: (1) he failed to report as directed by the Supervision
Officer on December 30, 2021; (2) he failed to obey all rules and regulations of the Community
Supervision and Corrections Department on January 6, 2022, by using profane and threatening
language toward his supervision officer; (3) he left Smith County on or about December 20,
2021, and traveled to Ector County, without the travel permission of the court or supervision
officer; (4) he failed to pay the urinalysis monthly service fee for the months of October and
December 2021; (5) he failed to provide valid employment information of a job change on
December 29, 2021; (6) he failed to pay the $60 per month supervision fee to the Smith County
Supervision and Corrections Department for the months of April, May, June, August, October,
and December 2021; (7) he failed to pay a $15 fee for the cost of the Substance Abuse
Questionnaire; (8) he failed to pay $100 for the preparation of the presentence report; and (9) he
failed to pay $10 per month toward outstanding pretrial supervision fees for the months of April
through December 2021.
        A hearing was conducted on the State’s motion, at which Appellant pleaded “true” to the
violations alleged therein. In support of its motion, the State elicited testimony from, among
others, La’Mia Prymus, the Smith County 7th District Court liaison to the Smith County
Community Supervision Department and Appellant’s community supervision officer. Prymus
testified regarding several of the violations referenced in the State’s motion, including his failure
to report on January 3, 2022.
        At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant violated the terms
and conditions of his community supervision as alleged in the State’s motion. Thereafter, it
revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated him “guilty” of burglary of a
habitation, and sentenced him to imprisonment for nine years. This appeal followed.

                            ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
        Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel states that she diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the
opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal
can be predicated. She further relates that she is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In
compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of
the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for
appeal. 1 We likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and found none.

        1
          In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief,
notified Appellant of her motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response,
and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d

                                                        2
                                                  CONCLUSION
         As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits.
Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to
withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
         As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five
days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise
him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he either must retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this
opinion or the day the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should
comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered January 19, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has
expired and no pro se brief has been filed.

                                                          3
                                  COURT OF APPEALS

     TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                          JUDGMENT

                                         JANUARY 19, 2023

                                        NO. 12-22-00072-CR

                                       JOHN SANDOVAL,
                                           Appellant
                                              V.
                                     THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                           Appellee

                                 Appeal from the 7th District Court
                        of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1030-20)

                   THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein,
and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
                   It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of
the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.
                   By per curiam opinion.
                   Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.