Court Opinion

ID: 9893194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-26 08:10:28.530313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:14.467529
License: Public Domain

In The
                                Court of Appeals
                       Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                       No. 07-23-00163-CR
                                       No. 07-23-00164-CR

                        BIJAN MAURAY WOLRIDGE, APPELLANT

                                                  V.

                             THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                           On Appeal from the 21st District Court
                                     Lee County, Texas
            Trial Court Nos. 9151 & 9152, Honorable Carson Campbell, Presiding

                                        October 19, 2023
                               MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

      Pending before this Court is a motion to withdraw supported by a brief filed

pursuant to Anders v. California.1 In 2019, pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant, Bijan

Mauray Wolridge, was convicted of assault family violence, enhanced, in trial court cause

number 9151, and of assault causing bodily injury, enhanced, in trial court cause number

      1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
9152.2 Punishment was assessed at ten years’ confinement in each case plus a fine of

$750, suspended in favor of ten years’ community supervision. Two years later, the State

filed an amended motion to revoke community supervision for numerous alleged

violations of the conditions thereof. At a hearing on the State’s motion, Appellant entered

pleas of not true to all of the allegations. Based on the evidence presented, the trial court

found two of the allegations to be true, revoked community supervision, and sentenced

Appellant to ten years’ confinement in each case to be served concurrently.3

        In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a

conscientious examination of the records, and in his opinion, they reflect no potentially

plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s convictions. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008).            Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling

authorities, the records support that conclusion. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978).             Counsel has demonstrated he has complied with the

requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to

Appellant, (2) notifying him of the right to file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and

(3) informing him of the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408.4 By letter, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to

        2 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.01(b)(2)(B), 22.01(a)(1), 12.42(d).

        3 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. Should
a conflict exist between precedent of the Third Court of Appeals and this Court on any relevant issue, this
appeal will be decided in accordance with the precedent of the transferor court . TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
        4 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary

review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply
with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days
                                                     2
exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief, should he be so inclined. Id. at 409

n.23. Appellant did file a response alleging potential errors in the State’s failure to comply

with a discovery request, denial of his motion for continuance, due process violations,

and bias by the trial judge against him and his counsel. The State did not favor this Court

with a response.

                                               BACKGROUND

        Less than one year after the 2019 plea agreement, the State gave Appellant notice

of alleged violations of the conditions of community supervision. He was arrested and

the State filed a motion to revoke in October 2020. Appellant was granted a jail release

order with additional conditions. The jail release order was later amended.

        In July 2021, the State filed an amended motion to revoke, and Appellant was

again arrested and granted a jail release order which required him, among other

conditions, to obtain a drug patch and continue “MHMR treatments, recommendations,

medications, and appointments.” Appellant did not comply, and his bond was revoked.

He failed to show for a scheduled court date in November 2021 and was not arrested until

December 2022 because he had absconded.

        After several attorneys were permitted to withdraw over the course of the case,

new counsel was substituted to represent Appellant on the amended motion to revoke.

In February 2023, counsel filed a Motion for Discovery and Inspection of Evidence

after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgments together with
notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Id. at 408 n.22, 411. The duty to
send the client a copy of this Court’s decision is an informational one, not a representational one. It is
ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted
counsel’s motion to withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33.

                                                      3
requesting a multitude of items. Counsel also filed a motion for continuance alleging his

discovery requests had not been fulfilled.

       At the commencement of the revocation hearing, defense counsel announced not

ready based on his discovery requests not being met. The State explained it did not have

some of the items requested and that others could have been obtained by defense

counsel on his own accord. After a lengthy back-and-forth over discovery issues, the trial

court denied the motion for continuance and proceeded with the hearing, to counsel’s

chagrin.

       After Appellant entered his pleas of not true, the State presented a sole witness—

the supervisor of the community supervision department who was also the custodian of

records.5 During direct examination, he testified over numerous objections that Appellant

did not complete a substance abuse evaluation and had never enrolled in a Batterers

Intervention Prevention Program (BIPP), which were two of the conditions of his

community supervision.

       During a contentions cross-examination in which the prosecutor lodged numerous

objections, defense counsel challenged the supervisor’s lack of personal knowledge of

the case and questioned the Department’s procedures. Counsel also emphasized the

Department’s lack of attention to Appellant’s schizophrenia in supervising him. At one

point, defense counsel was placed in custody and threatened with contempt by the trial

court for attacking the witness. When defense counsel explained it was not his intention

to attack the witness, the trial court warned “if you smirk at me again, you’re going to find

       5 Appellant’s former supervising officers were no longer with the department.

                                                   4
out how 180 days is in the county jail.” Cross-examination continued and defense counsel

sought testimony from the witness on alternatives to incarceration.

      After the State rested, defense counsel conceded Appellant has a drug issue and

severe mental health issues. Again, claiming he was denied relevant discovery, he chose

not to present any witnesses to dispute the State’s evidence.

      The trial court ruled Appellant had violated two conditions of community

supervision—failure to enroll and complete BIPP and failure to complete a substance

abuse evaluation. During the punishment phase, the State noted the seriousness of the

underlying assault family violence convictions and requested the maximum punishment

of ten years.   Defense counsel argued for an alternative to incarceration such as

Substance Abuse Felony Punishment (SAFP) or Intermediate Sanction Facility (ISF),

which are treatment programs. The trial court sentenced Appellant to ten years in each

case and a $750 fine and ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

                                 STANDARD OF REVIEW

      When reviewing an order revoking community supervision, the appellate standard

of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d

860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2006)). In a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the

evidence that a defendant violated a condition of community supervision as alleged in the

motion to revoke. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). In a

revocation context, “a preponderance of the evidence” means “that greater weight of the

credible evidence which would create a reasonable belief that the defendant has violated

                                           5
a condition of his [community supervision].” Hacker, 389 S.W.3d at 865 (citing Rickels,

202 S.W.3d at 764).           The trial court abuses its discretion in revoking community

supervision if, as to every ground alleged, the State fails to meet its burden of proof.

Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Proof of a single violation

is sufficient to support revocation. Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App.

2012).

         In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a revocation, we view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d

419, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the

witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. Hacker, 389 S.W.3d at 865. In

a revocation proceeding, the trial court has discretion to revoke community supervision

when a preponderance of the evidence supports one of the State’s allegations that the

defendant violated a condition of his community supervision. Leonard v. State, 385

S.W.3d 570, 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).

                                               ANALYSIS

         By the Anders brief, counsel recites he reviewed the proceedings and concludes

there are no due process concerns. He notes the evidence in support of the trial court’s

ruling was undisputed. He also evaluates defense counsel’s effectiveness given the

“want of professionalism” but concedes it is insufficient under the Strickland v.

Washington6 standard to show any deficiency would have resulted in a different outcome

given the undisputed evidence.

         6 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed.2d 674 (1984).

                                                    6
       When we have an Anders brief by counsel and a pro se response by an appellant,

we have two choices. We may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an

opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error; Bledsoe

v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at

744), or we may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause

to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief issues. Id. (citing Stafford

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).

       We too have independently examined the records to determine whether there are

any non-frivolous issues which might support these appeals. See Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at

409; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. We have found no such issues. See Gainous v. State,

436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief,

and pro se response, we agree with counsel there is no plausible basis for reversal of

Appellant’s convictions. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27.

                                         CONCLUSION

       The trial court’s judgments are affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is

granted.

                                                         Alex Yarbrough
                                                             Justice

Do not publish.

Quinn, C.J., concurring in the result.

                                             7