Mangram, Timothy Earl ( 2015 )

/022/S
no. /Wk<;^/o
IN THE ORIGINAL
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
-SywQ-JU £o* \ CV\GjAL\fb\h,* (Tart (V"C-fiK
ly earl (Yxc"Qi ir-
[APPELLANT]
Petitioner
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Petition in Cause No.ft \^Si± -tVOfrom the
(g^f Judicial District Court oftia.(d county, Texas and
Case No. 07->^ - exHa^-CR in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Supreme Judicial District of Texas
gf flftNArillo TovaS>
PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS:
[APPELLANT] petitions the Court to review the judgment affirming his conviction
for the degree felony oftfyOO \u\itiS and punishment assessed at P* ***** '
\
yea*s confinement in the TDCJ-ID.
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
The grounds for review set forth in this petition concern ~7\*~ YY[c^ia.c/£^
Oral argument would be helpful to the Court in determining an important
constitutional issue, i.e., .
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The issues in this case concern Ti^ jfVWflA fa**-*' •
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner was charged by indictment with the $QQ^ degree felony offense of
>"uQfg_4V\ftyv4faDQ bjlteS j\#rf fThe jury convicted Petitioner of the offense of
\Uai|j| pfapgri^ and sentenced Petitioner to aterm in the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice - Institutional Division for a period of j-O fv.5A-lpi<> . Petitioner appealed
the conviction to the Seventh Court of Appeals.
The Seventh Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming Petitioner's conviction
on ^Timi ffi l9m /^ . No motion for rehearing was filed by Petitioner.
QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW
1.
ARGUMENT
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays that this Court grant this
petition, and upon reviewing the judgment entered by the Seventh Court of Appeals, reverse
the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this cause with instructions to
Respectfully submitted,
APPELANT],
[APPEL PETITIONER <* °
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing instrument was provided to all
counsel of record in this matter on the Ik dayof JL.Im , 20/^", in accordance
with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. "
State Prosecuting Attorney
P. O. Box 12405
Austin, Texas 78711
County District Attorney
Petitioner V
Court of appeals;
g>ebentlj JBtetrtct of Cexaa at gfotarillo
No. 07-14r00425-CR
TIMOTHY EARL MANGRAM, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 64th District Court
Hale County, Texas
Trial Court No. A19552-1310, Honorable Robert W. Kinkaid, Jr., Presiding
June 30,2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, CJ., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant, Timothy Earl Mangram, entered a plea of guilty on February 12, 2014,
to the offense of theft of property with a value of $1,500 or more but less than $20,000.1
Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find
appellant guilty; however, the trial court deferred final adjudication and placed appellant
on community supervision for a period of five years. Subsequently, on April 14, 2014,
the State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant guilty. Trial on the State's motion
1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A) (West Supp. 2014).
occurred on November 7, 2014, and appellant entered a plea of true to one allegation
contained in the State's motion to adjudicate. Ultimately, the trial court found all six
allegations true and, after a separate punishment hearing, assessed appellant's
punishment at confinement in a State Jail Facility for 20 months. Appellant appeals the
trial court's judgment. We will affirm.
Appellant's attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his
motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in
his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities,
there is no error in the trial court's judgment.
By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an
appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and
made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any
arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the
appeal is frivolous.2
2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the
opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant's right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review. See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4.
FILE COPY
BRIAN QUINN
Chier'Jusrice
(Hmxxi ofappeals VIVIAN LONG
Clerk
JAMES T. CAMPBELL
Justice
Js>enentl] ^talrfct of©exaa MAILING ADDRESS:
MACKEY K. HANCOCK Potter (Eountg (Eourta £@utlnmg P. O. Box 9540
79105-9540
Justice
501^. ,3)jtIImon>,^wte 2-813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
The Court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Additionally,
appellant's counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the record to
use in preparation of a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has filed a response.
We have reviewed this response by appellant. We have found no arguable
grounds contained in the response. Appellant's sole contention is that the State alleged
more instances of failing to meet curfew than actually occurred. However, appellant
does not address any of the other terms and conditions of community supervision that
the State's motion to adjudicate addresses. Proof of violation of a single term and
condition of community supervision is sufficient to support a trial court's decision to
adjudicate. See Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1980). Accordingly, appellant fails to raise an arguable ground in his response.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court's judgment is
affirmed.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
3> £' 'O ^ CT
- 2. £
v ^ 55-
6
*• -
•: -\
*3>
Lr