Court Opinion

ID: 4059481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 19:32:47.802938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:06:44.789750
License: Public Domain

ACCEPTED
                                                                  06-14-00240-cr
                                                      SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
                                                            TEXARKANA, TEXAS
                                                            4/22/2015 3:42:39 PM
                                                                DEBBIE AUTREY
                                                                          CLERK

         No. O6-L4-00240-CEt
                                              FILED IN
    IN The Sixth Court of       Agrpeal.s
                                        6th COURT OF APPEALS
           Texarkana, llexas              TEXARKANA, TEXAS
                                        4/22/2015 3:42:39 PM
                                           DEBBIE AUTREY
                                                Clerk
         DENISE GAIL DOOLEY,
                                      AppeTTarzt,
                  v.
         THE STATE OF TE:nS,,
                                      A5>pe77ee.

Appeals from the L24E}r Distr:ict Court
         Gregg CountY, Texasl
       Trial Court No.    42   ,348-8

             ATIDERS BRIEF

                           ATTC)RD{EY FOR

                           APPELLAIiIT:
                           ,feff T. ilackson
                           SBOT No . 2406997 6i
                           7 3 6.A Hvry 259 N .
                           KiJ-gore, TX 7 5662:'
                           Phonre: 903- 654'33i62
                           Fax:         817-887-43133

                   oRAt   ARGTIyIENT NOT REgUIESTED
                             LrsT oF             PARTTES            Alrp cou$rqqL

API?ELLANT:           DENISE GAIL DOOLEY
                      TDCJ No. Pending
                       Crarta          -nrrnfrTu
                                       vv9rr          \   Jail
                       101 E. Methvin, Ste. 559
                      lvirY   v ruyvor^r
                      T,r^rnr-rrri     I
                                                 TX 75601
                                                 Lt

     Rar^lrcrqanl-       rf L nri
                    orl cr
     r\sIJrErDsr.r L-sLr            ai _LrJ.cl_L
                              \Jr _Lv    n r I nl a:                      hrz.
                                                                          p
                                                 IJrsq-                     J .
     Ed**ri Ch"y
     SBOT No. 24062665
     606 El " Methvin St.
     lvrrY  v rvvvor^r
     T,nnr-rrri      f  'l'X 75601
                             Lz

     Phone:            903-2L2-4818

     Repre:sented at sentencing by:
     Ri."h€ffi
      SBOT No. 10308600
      222 N. Fredonia St.
     rJr\Jrr9V_LCWt
        ^^ ---.: ^-, -x
                     rr 15606
      Phoner. 903-234-8181
     Reprersented on appeaf by:
     Jeff T. Jackson
     SBOT      No.
               2406991 6
     136-A Hwy 259 N.
     Kilgcrre, TX 15662
     Phone: 903-65 4-3362
     Fax: BIl - BB7-4333
APIIET,LEE:           State of Texas
     Par,  raqanl-
     r\EIJTC:DEr-rLCLr arl        =f
                                  CLL a-'i ^-'i ^ - I
                                      \Jr-Lgl.rrCr_L             nl ar
                                                                 y_LUd.   l.rrz.
                                                                          JJy .

     "-raetrtCntrnfrz
     (]rarrrv
     v!vYY
                   ""tt"
              vvurruJ              l-)'i ql-ri
                                   uLOv!rvu      r..l- nuuv!IIgy
                                                       A1-1-nr?1a\Z
     SBOT No. 24059180
     101 E:. Methvin, Ste.                                333
     T,nncrrri
     lvrrY      oinr f-
           v revv         fX 75601
                          Lz
Phone:   903-236-8440

Bgpfesented   at oriqi"?l
Christopher Parker
Gregg County District Attorney
SBOT No. 24046585
101 B. Methvi-n, Ste. 333
Longview, TX 75601
Phone: 903-236-8440
Represented on appeal by:
Van Colson Brown
Gregg County District Attorney
SBOT No. 03205900
101 E. Methvin, Ste. 333
Longview, TX 75601
Phone: 903-236-8440
                          TAT}LE   Ol'     CONTENTS

List of Parties and Counsel..                             .....i
Table of Contents...                                     ....iii
Index of Authorities                                     .....iv
Statement of the Case                                     ....vi
fssues Presented                                         ...v"iii
Statement of Facts...                                     .....1
Summary        of t.he Arguments..                          ....3
Arrrrrman.l-                                                  ...v   A

       I.      APPELLANT'S PLEA OF GUILTY COM:PLIED WITH TI-{E
               REQUTREMENTS OF ARTTCLE 26.73 OF THE TEXA,S
               CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE..             ...6

      II       NO OBJECTION TO THE EVIDENCE WAS MADE DURING
               THE PUNTSHMENT STAGE OF ]]RIAL AND NO
               MERITORIOUS LEGAL CLAIM EXISTS RELATED TO THE
               IMPOSIT]ON OF PUNISHMENT            . . .8
      I]I. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL IS
           NOT A VIABLE CLAIM BASED ON THE] RECORD BEFORE
           THIS COURT                     .....10

Statement of Attornev to the Court                          . . .13

Conclusion and Praver                                     ....I4
Certificat-e of Compl-iance                               ....15
Cert.ificat-e of Service..                               .... -16

                                     111
                                       rNDEX OE' AUTHORITTES

Ca:se Law:

An516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.I9j4) .                                14

Fu<>ntes v .              State,
           688 Si .W.2d 542, 544 (Tex.Crim.App 1985).                         j
Hernandez v. State,
    126 S.W.2d 53, 51 (Tex.Crim.App.19BG) .                                  11

Jac:k v. State,
     B7I Si.W.2d 14I (Tex.Cr.App.I9j4)                                        5

Jac:kson v. State,
           811 S.W.2d'/68, 11I (Tex.Crim.App.1994)                          .11
Jeffery v. State,
     903 S.W. 116 (Tex.App.-Dal_las 1995r rro pet.).               5,       L4

Stz"ickl-and v. Washington,
     466 u.s. 668 (1984).                                         11,       12

Thc,mpson              v. State,
           9 S.W.3d B0B, BI2 (Tex.Cri_m.App.1999) .               11   ,,   12

United States v. Johnson,
    521 F .2d I32B , L329 ( 5rh Cir . I9j 6) .                               4

                                                        IV
Startutes   :

Tex.. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 26.L3   . 5, 6,   1
                        STATEMENT OF THE CASF]

       Appe-Llant waived indictment                        f   or            attemptrngJ to
possess or obtain a control-l-ed subst.ance by fraud I                                            a

th.Lrd deqyree felony, and elected to enter a guilty plea
to the court on April              18   , 201,3. RR2 p . 5; CR p .                           26   .

Aplrell-ant. waived presentment of the case to a grand jury

an903 S.W. 116 (Tex.App.-Dal-l-as 1995, no pet.)
                             ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

                                               I.
     APPE],LANT      '   S     PLEA OF GUILTY COMPI,IED WITH                THEI

      REQU:I-REMENTS            OF ARTICLE 26.13 OF THE TEXAS             CODE

      OF CI.{IMINAL           PROCEDURE    .

     Appe-l-l-ant's counsel has reviewed thLe record in detail
ancl has identified                  no action or i-naction on the t-rial
court's      part            t.hat    suggests harmfu,I error               in      the
Defendant's pleading guilty to the charges.
     Befo:::e accepting a guilty plea, the trial                         court must
adnnonish a def endant of : (1) the punishment range , (2)

the fact that the State's sentencinq recommendation is
not- binding on the court,                 (3) the limited right to appeal
anrl
urf\a (4\
      \ r/ fhe
           urrv ncrssihilifrz
                yvuurv!rruJ   of dcnortal.ion.                   Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. art.      26.13(a).                The admonishments may be                  made

eit-her orally or in writing.                        Id at 26.I3 (d) .
     At Appellant's original pleas, the court                            admonj-shed

Annal l:nf     .)n           f ha    nra
                                     I--Jper        range for    the     charge of
attempting to possess or obta j-n a controlled substance
by fraud .                      RR2      pp   . 5-6; CR           pp   . j -B .               The court
subst.antially                    complied with the requ j-rement.s of                                  t.he

SteitUte i.n 3r'r.arr1. inr.r anrro'l I =n1- t c rrrrf lty                    plea aS eVidelnCed

by             the       written              plea      admoni-shments and                           verbal
adnonj-shments by the trial                             judge.         RR2    pp. 5-10,              CR pp.

7-8.
           To bel constitutionally                      valid, a guilty plea must                        be

kncrwing and voluntary.                            See Brady v. United Sta tes , 391
U.S. '742, 149, (1970); see al-so Tex" Code Crim. Proc.
Ann. art. 26.13 (b) . When the record shows that the t.rial
court. admonished the defendant in subst-antial- compli.ance
wit.h Art j..cl-e              26      .13 of the Code of Criminal Proceclure,
thj-s is a prj-ma facie showing that the plea was knowing
ancl volu.ntarv.                         ,See Tex . Code Crim. Proc                           Ann   . art   .

26.L3 (C); See Crawford v. State,                                      890 S.w.2d 542,                   544

(Tex " Cr j-rn. App . 198 5 )             .     There is nothing in the record to
'i   nrli n=J-a
IIILIIL-A(-g           arrnal l:nl-
                       n.L1_y9fJqrlU          nl   e,aded
                                              I/Jsquev      YufruJ I f
                                                            crrri      rz   ;rnd
                                                                            L:trv     trtte
                                                                                      e!u           Wit.hOUt

uncierstanding the consequences of he:: plea, and as                                                        a

-^.-,. r
IEDUTt-7       |     7\nngll_ant
                     l1v-y                SUf f   ered nO harm.                     See FUenteS V .
 St,zte, 6BB S.W.2d 542, 544 (Tex.Crim-App 1985).                                                       The
trj-al court accepted Appellant's ori-qi-nal plea of guilty
anci   a finding of guilt was deferred"   RR2      pp. 10-14.   The

vol-unt.ariness of Appellant's     pleas is         shown by the
record.. RR2 p. 5-10; CR p. B.       The trial-       court asked
Appell-ant's trial- attorney certain questions relating to
Appellant' s competetcY, and. the         trial-     court   f:ound

Appell-ant to be competent. RR 2 p. 10. Appell-ant also
steited j-1 her writt.en plea admonishment.s that she           was

competent   .   CR   p.   B
                                           II.
      NO OBJECTION TO EV]DENCE OR EXHIBITS WAS MADT]

      DURTNG         THE PUN]SHMENT STAGE OF TRIAL AND                    NC)

      MERITORIOUS LEGAL CLAIM EXISTS RELATED TO                          THE]

      IMPOS]ITION OF PUNISHMENT.

      On the l8th day of April,                   2013, Appel-l-ant's plea of
gu-Llty w.is accepted by the trial-                      court.     CR2 pp. 10.

Ap1:ell-ant. was placed on deferred adjud.ication probal-i-on,

ancl the trial-           court adj udicated Appel-lant guilty                  on

December       LL, 2014.        RR     5 p. 30;   CR    p. 65" The punisirment
phirse of Appell-ant' s trial                began on December II ,         20L4   .

RR5   p.   6   ,. No evidence was presented by the state other
than the Stipulation                 of Evidence and the Guilty lllea.
RRli p.    1   .     Appel-l-ant made no          ob   j ect j-on to evj-dence or

exlribits          of fered   by the state, RR5 pp. 6-28, and the
trial judge sentenced Appellant. to seven (7) years in the
Instituti..onal- Division of t.he Texeis Department- of
Cr.iminal- Justice            (TDCJ)      RR5    p. 30;    CR   p" 65.
    The t.rial- court was the fact finder for purposes of

the: punishment decision. The evidence before the court
was Subst-antial and the sentence was adequate.          The

juclge's remarks followi-ng the cl-ose of evidence indi.cate
the circumstances taken in consi-deration rel-ated to the
sentence assessed in open court - RR5 pp. 30-31.

                              10
                                                                    III.

         INEFF'ECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL                                                     ]S   NOT

         A VIABLE CLA]M                            BASED UPON THE RECORD BEFORE THIS

         COURT

         Claims of i-nef f ective                                          assistance of counsel are
an.il vzed, under the two-prong test set out by the United

States Supreme Court in Strickfand v. Vfashington,                                                               466

U.   Si. 658 (1984) , and adopted by Texas in Hernandez v.
state,726 S"W.2d 53, 51 (Tex.Crim.App"1986) . Appel-l-ant
muriL show             that trial                      counsel-'s performance waS defic:-ent,
+r-\-\f
LItStrickTand, 466 U.S.
at        687; Jackson v.                                         State,         B1'/ S-W.2d '768, 11I
/'n,rv     r'-ri nr arrrr         1  qq4      \I   .           Thi
                                                               rftrt e !vYuf
                                                                       rocrri !vu
                                                                              res      An'nel I ant   ShOW thef e
\ l-t-21 . \/I-LIL[.l-1l-,,.y.    -LJJa

                                                                                                                  Is
is a reasonable probability                                                    that,     but    f   or counisel
Lf,fI-y!VIgt\JJvlIsI essl i ona
r'rn'nrr.rf                       I arrors - the reSuIt Of th.e prOCeeding wOuld
                                   v!   !v!            v   t

                                                                       11
har.e been dif f erent .                    Strickf and, 466     U.S   . at      694;

Jac:kson, 811 S.W.2d                   at 117. A reasonabl-e probability is
e r.rrokrakrj
a                        ., .>L,tIII\--LErl
  I./r\Jr-lc"JJrfr I i fuy
                             otttt i ni a1l tO Undermine COnf idenCe in the

out,come. StrickJand, 466 U.S. at 694; Jackson, 811 S.W.2d
^..f-         '1'1 1
dL             I tL.

                    In r<=viewinq an ineffective       assistance Of counsel-
cleiim, there is a strong presumption that                              couns;e.l-   's
conduct                  f   al-1s within   the wide range of          reasorlable

professional- assiStance and the appel-1ant must overcome
the presLrmption that the chal-lenged conduct might                                  be

considered sound trial                      strategy. Thompson, 9 S.W.3d             at.

B1.1; StrickTand, 466 U.S. at 5B9. Any allegation                                    of
ineffect.j.veness must be firmly founded and affirmat--Lve1y
d.ernonstra.ted                 in the record to overcome this presumpl-ion.
 Thnmnson..
 Lll\JI.LIJ9vll,.            I S.W.3d at 813; see Jackson, B-/'l        S -W-   2d at
17'.L           . It is the Appellant 's burden to prove inef f ect j-ve
asrsisLance of counsel by a preponderance of the evidence                               -

 rd.
                    At the guilt     phase of her t.rial   wherein she en'[ered
 -
 d         ^'r      n= nr
                       \J.L
                            \\.rrri I f rz| " ,'.Y.F
                                              AnDelIant waS informed by the trial
           Prt:a              YLILLvI

                                                12
court of her right to plead "not guiJ-ty" and have the
case tried before a jury.                                             RR2    p. 6. At no point during
rnr' nf
arr] \J r fhr:
          uf r\:l rrrr'r-oadinrrq
                  I/! vvsEurrrY  u                          ri-p1   this    CaUSe di