Cristina Lashawn Martinez v. State of Texas ( 2002 )

NO. 07-01-0245-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
APRIL 1, 2002
______________________________
CHRISTINA LASHAWN MARTINEZ, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. B13655-0002; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
Pursuant to a plea of guilty for forgery, on February 23, 2000, appellant Christina
Lashawn Martinez was granted deferred adjudication and placed on community
supervision for two years. On July 10, 2000, the trial court found that appellant had
violated three conditions of her community supervision and adjudicated her guilty of the
original offense. Punishment was assessed at two years confinement, suspended for five
years. Then, on May 7, 2001, pursuant to the State’s motion to revoke community
supervision for numerous violations of the terms and conditions thereof, the trial court
revoked community supervision and imposed a sentence of two years confinement in a
state jail facility. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders1 brief in support
of a motion to withdraw. Based upon the rationale expressed herein, we affirm.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has diligently
reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error or grounds
upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87
S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.--San
Antonio 1984, no pet.). Thus, he concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit. In
compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has
candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the court's
judgment. Counsel has also shown that he sent a copy of the brief to appellant, and
informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without merit. In addition, counsel
has demonstrated that he notified appellant of her right to review the record and file a pro
se brief if she desired to do so. Appellant did not file a pro se brief. The State did not
favor us with a brief.
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2
When reviewing an order revoking community supervision, the sole question before
this Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d
303, 305 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983). In a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that appellant violated a condition of community
supervision. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex.Cr.App. 1993). Although one
sufficient ground for revocation supports the trial court’s order, Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d
924, 926 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980), a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support the trial
court’s revocation order. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979).
At the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, after appellant was properly
admonished, she voluntarily and knowingly entered a plea of true to some but not all of the
State’s allegations. By written stipulation, she also claimed that all allegations in the
State’s motion to revoke, with the exception of portions of the second and fourth
paragraphs, were true and correct. She admitted committing theft at a K-Mart to be “part
of the crowd, and be – to fit in.” She also confirmed that she tested positive for marihuana
in August 2000, just one month after being placed on community supervision. Based on
the evidence presented, the trial court was within its discretion in revoking appellant’s
community supervision for violations of the terms and conditions thereof.
Counsel presents four arguable points of error, to wit: (1) whether the evidence is
legally and factually sufficient to establish the elements of “scienter and property” on the
revocation offense; (2) whether the State failed to prove identity during the revocation
3
proceeding; (3) whether appellant’s conviction for forgery was void as the indictment on
its face failed to allege the crime charged; and (4) whether appellant received ineffective
assistance of counsel for the revocation. However, after a discussion of the evidence and
legal authorities, counsel concedes that no reversible error is presented.
We have also made an independent examination of the entire record to determine
whether there are any arguable grounds which might support the appeal. See Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
503, 511 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991). We have found no such grounds and agree with counsel
that the appeal is without merit and is, therefore, frivolous. Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d
684 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974); Lacy v. State, 477 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972).
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the judgment of
the trial court is affirmed.
Don H. Reavis
Justice
Do not publish.
4