Court Opinion

ID: 4364317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-02-04 09:41:12.764817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:49:09.165588
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-18-00058-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

 KENNETH PAUL WATERHOUSE,                         §       APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
 APPELLANT

 V.                                               §       JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

 THE STATE OF TEXAS,
 APPELLEE                                         §       SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                      PER CURIAM
       Kenneth Paul Waterhouse 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). Appellant filed a pro se response. We affirm.

                                          BACKGROUND
       Appellant was charged by indictment with tampering with a government record and
pleaded “guilty.” Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant was placed on two years deferred
adjudication community supervision.
       Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision
alleging that Appellant violated certain terms and conditions thereof. A hearing was conducted on
the State’s motion, at which Appellant pleaded “true” to two of the State’s allegations. 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. The trial court revoked Appellant’s
community supervision, adjudicated him “guilty” of tampering with a government record, and
sentenced him to two years confinement. 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 relates that he has reviewed the record and found no arguable grounds
for appeal. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1978), Appellant’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds to be advanced.
        Appellant contends in his pro se response that (1) the sentence imposed at the revocation
proceeding is disproportionate to the sentences of similarly situated defendants and (2) his sentence
is the product of judicial bias.
        When faced with an Anders brief and a pro se response by an appellant, an appellate court
can either (1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it
has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) determine that arguable grounds for
appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief
the issues. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

                                           CONCLUSION
        After conducting an independent examination of the record, we find no reversible error and
conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See id. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
        As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991),
Appellant’s counsel has 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 and now grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.
        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 these cases 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
pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within
thirty days from the date of this court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for rehearing
was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review

                                                 2
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 Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered January 31, 2019.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                          3
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                          JANUARY 31, 2019

                                         NO. 12-18-00058-CR

                               KENNETH PAUL WATERHOUSE,
                                        Appellant
                                           V.
                                  THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                        Appellee

                                Appeal from the 114th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1349-15)

                       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.