Charlie McIntosh Massey v. State ( 2005 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

  No. 04-04-00578-CR

Charlie McIntosh MASSEY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2002-CR-6591

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

Opinion by:    Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting:            Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed:   October 19, 2005

AFFIRMED

            Defendant, Charlie McIntosh Massey, pled no contest to forgery of a commercial instrument, pursuant to a plea bargain, and was placed on community supervision. Later, Defendant pled “true” to violating the terms of her community supervision. Defendant filed a general notice of appeal, and her court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes that the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Defendant was informed of her right to review the record. Counsel provided defendant with a copy of the brief and advised her of her right to file a pro se brief. Defendant filed a brief alleging she entered a plea of nolo contendere without knowing that meant she had to agree the evidence was true; she was not guilty; and she did not know she could not go to trial if she pled not guilty.

            Defendant was required to raise any complaints involving the imposition of regular community supervision at the original proceeding, but she did not do so. See Corley v. State, 782 S.W.2d 859, 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); see also Alvarez v. State, 50 S.W.3d 566, 567 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.). Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to consider any arguable issues regarding the original imposition of regular community supervision. Alvarez, 50 S.W.3d at 567. However, we may review defendant’s appeal to the extent it relates to the revocation of her community supervision after her plea of true. See Feagin v. State, 967 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Defendant asserts she was misled and was not aware of the consequences of her plea. A review of the record has uncovered no evidence to substantiate defendant’s claim that she was misled and thereby induced into pleading true. A trial court is not required to admonish a defendant as to the consequences of a plea of true to probation violations. See Harris v. State, 505 S.W.2d 576, 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Lanum v. State, 952 S.W.2d 36, 39 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.). Also, we do not consider allegations that are unsupported and unfounded in the record. Garcia v. State, 791 S.W.2d 279, 282 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d). Finally, we note that a plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court’s determination to revoke. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). We thus find that defendant has not met her burden to show that she pled true without understanding the consequences of her plea and, consequently, suffered harm.

            After reviewing the record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH