Court Opinion

ID: 9378633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-11 11:08:09.724271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:31.705898
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-22-00105-CR

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

              TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                    TYLER, TEXAS

TYRONE GLENN,                                  §      APPEAL FROM THE 369TH
APPELLANT

V.                                             §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                       §      CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                     PER CURIAM
       Tyrone Glenn 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 obstruction, aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon, and aggravated sexual assault with a deadly weapon. The indictment further alleged
that Appellant previously was convicted of the second-degree felony of manufacture/delivery of
a controlled substance. Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, Appellant pleaded “guilty”
to the lesser-included offense of aggravated sexual assault. In accord, the trial court deferred
finding Appellant “guilty” and placed him on community supervision for ten 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 thereof.
Specifically, the State contended that Appellant violated the terms of his community supervision
as follows: (1) on two occasions, he signed an admittance form stating that he had consumed
alcohol; (2) on two occasions, he signed an admittance form stating that he used cocaine; (3) he
failed to report to his community supervision officer in May and June 2021; (4) he failed to pay
court costs and costs associated with his court appointed attorney and is delinquent in payment
toward numerous other fees; (5) he failed timely to perform his 600 hours of community service
and is delinquent in that service by 172 hours; (6) he failed to comply with the terms of his
“Sanctions Contract;” (7) he failed timely to participate in and successfully complete the
“Corrective Actions Class” and pay the associated fees; and (8) he provided deceptive responses
in two polygraph examinations.
        A hearing was conducted on the State’s motion, at which Appellant pleaded “not true” to
the violations alleged in the State’s motion. In support of its motion, the State elicited testimony
from Appellant’s community supervision officer, Omar Marroquin. Marroquin testified that
Appellant admitted to using cocaine and alcohol, was delinquent in the payment of various fees,
did not perform his required community service, did not comply with the terms of his “Sanctions
Contract” or complete a “Corrective Actions Class,” and provided deceitful responses during two
polygraph examinations.
        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 aggravated sexual
assault, and sentenced him to imprisonment for fifty years. Appellant filed a motion for new
trial, which was overruled. 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

        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,

                                                        2
         Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised the following issues:
(1) during the “punishment phase[,]” he received ineffective assistance of counsel, who failed to
advise him that the testimony he gave would be “in mitigation of guilt,” and (2) the trial judge
exhibited bias by failing to conduct a separate hearing on punishment following the revocation of
Appellant’s community supervision. We reviewed the record for reversible error and found
none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

                                                  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 appeal 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 must either 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 date that the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.2(a). 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 March 8, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

                                                          3
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                            MARCH 8, 2023

                                         NO. 12-22-00105-CR

                                        TYRONE GLENN,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee

                                Appeal from the 369th District Court
                           of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 21029)

                        THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs 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.