Sonya Demetric Smith v. State ( 2005 )

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-05-00202-CR

______________________________

SONYA DEMETRIC SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 71st Judicial District Court

Harrison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 05-0071X

---

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Sonya Demetric Smith pled guilty to the offense of forgery. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 32.21(b) (Vernon Supp. 2005). The trial court found Smith guilty and, pursuant to a plea agreement, assessed her punishment at two years' confinement in a state jail facility, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed Smith on community supervision for a period of four years.

          Eighteen days after the trial court placed Smith on community supervision, the State filed an application to revoke Smith's community supervision. The application alleged that, on June 13, 2005 (during Smith's community supervision), she had unlawfully appropriated lawn and garden equipment valued at more than $50.00 but less than $500.00 from Brent Sipe. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2005). At the hearing on the State's motion, the trial court found the evidence supporting the State's motion to be "overwhelming," revoked Smith's community supervision, and imposed the original sentence. Smith thereafter timely appealed the trial court's judgment.

          Smith's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief in which he professionally discussed the record, described the issues reviewed, and concluded there were no arguable grounds for appeal. As required by Anders, counsel also filed a motion to withdraw. Counsel also sent Smith a copy of the appellate brief and informed her of the right to file a response pro se and of her right to review the record. This Court informed Smith that her response, if any, was due by November 17, 2005. As of this date, we have not received such a response.

          We have independently reviewed the record and the brief filed by counsel in this appeal, and we agree there are no arguable issues that would support an appeal in this case. First, any potential issues related to Smith's original guilty plea (such as voluntariness or evidentiary sufficiency) would have to have been raised in an appeal from the original plea. Because Smith did not timely appeal the original guilty plea proceeding, we cannot now address any potential issues related to that proceeding. See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661–62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

          Second, applying the usual standards of review, we conclude the evidence is factually and legally sufficient to support the trial court's decision to adjudicate. Smith stipulated at the revocation hearing that she pawned certain items of lawn and garden equipment. She further stipulated that these same items later were reported as being stolen from Marshall Independent School District. There was no evidence Smith had herself appropriated these items from the school. The sole question, then, for the trial court to determine was whether Smith knew these items were stolen at the time she sold them to the pawn shop. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(b)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2005) (appropriation unlawful if actor obtains possession knowing property was stolen by another).

          Brian Sipe, the athletic trainer for Marshall Independent School District, testified some weed eaters and gas blowers had been taken without permission from the school in early June 2005. Sipe then reported the theft to law enforcement. Roger Willbanks, an employee at Cash America Pawn shop, testified Smith pawned two gas trimmers and a gas leaf blower at his shop.

          Detective Mark Warden of the Marshall Police Department investigated the theft of lawn equipment from the school. Warden's investigation led him to conclude the items that had been pawned by Smith at Cash America Pawn shop were the same items that had been stolen from the school. During Warden's investigation, he also interviewed Smith regarding the theft. Smith told him during that interview "that she felt that her sons had stolen the items." She also expressed to Smith that she believed the items she pawned were "hot."

          Fifteen-year-old Lawrence Smith, Sonya's son, also testified. Lawrence told the trial court he had stolen some lawn and garden equipment from the school and then asked his mother to pawn the items for him. While Lawrence testified he never told his mother the items were stolen, the State offered into evidence Lawrence's written juvenile confession in which Lawrence stated he had admitted to his mother he had stolen the lawn and garden equipment.

          Smith testified she took her sons to the pawn shop June 14, 2005, and allowed them to sell "their" lawn equipment. She denied knowing the items were stolen at the time she pawned them for her sons. She testified Lawrence did not tell her the items were stolen until after she had already been arrested for possessing (and selling) the stolen property. However, Smith's testimony was impeached through her admission to having been previously convicted of a felony drug offense and a felony theft offense. See Tex. R. Evid. 609(a).

          The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, is legally sufficient to support the trial court's conclusion that Smith violated her conditions of community supervision by knowingly selling stolen property. Similarly, the greater weight of the credible evidence creates a reasonable belief Smith violated a condition of her community supervision. The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion by revoking Smith's community supervision.

          We affirm the judgment.

                                                                Donald R. Ross

                                                                Justice

Date Submitted:      December 27, 2005

Date Decided:         December 30, 2005  

Do Not Publish