Timothy Earl Mangram v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                        In The
    Court of Appeals
    Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
    No. 07-14-00425-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, C.J., 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
    1
    See 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.
    2
    Counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief
    and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se
    response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 
    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