Willis Irving v. State ( 2000 )

Willis Irving v. The State of Texas

    IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-99-310-CR

No. 10-99-311-CR

No. 10-99-312-CR

No. 10-99-313-CR

     WILLIS IRVING,

                                                                         Appellant

     v.

     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                         Appellee

From the 195th District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court No. F99-71932

Trial Court No. F99-43285

Trial Court No. F99-18617

Trial Court No. F99-50285

O P I N I O N

      In April 1999, Willis Irving pled guilty to the charges contained in two indictments, one alleging that he had committed the offense of forgery, the other alleging that he had committed the offense of theft of property of a value less than $1,500. Both indictments contained two enhancement paragraphs, charging that Irving had been previously and sequentially convicted of two felonies, which had the effect of elevating the possible punishments for each offense to the second degree felony level. Irving pled true to the enhancement allegations as well. Although there was no plea bargain with the State, the court deferred a ruling on his pleas and placed Irving on ten years’ deferred adjudication probation, one condition of which was that Irving successfully complete an intensive drug rehabilitation program known as “Cenikor.”

      Irving was unable to successfully complete the Cenikor program. In August 1999, he appeared before the court again, this time on both the State’s motions to adjudicate his guilt for the earlier offenses and two new indictments—one charging him with a second forgery offense and the other alleging that he had committed the offense of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. Again, both indictments contained sequential enhancement allegations, elevating the possible punishment for each offense to the second degree felony level. Without the benefit of a plea bargain, Irving pled guilty to the charges in the new indictments, and true to both the enhancement allegations in the indictments and to the State’s allegations in the motions to adjudicate his guilt. After considering evidence offered by Irving in mitigation of his punishment, the court accepted his pleas to the new indictments, the enhancing allegations, and the motions to adjudicate, found him guilty of all charges, and assessed punishment of concurrent twenty year sentences on each offense. Irving filed a notice of appeal of the court’s decision in all four causes.

      Irving’s appellate attorney has filed an Anders brief addressing all four appeals. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, order, no pet.) (discussing procedures for Anders appeal, revisiting Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 646 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. ref’d)). Counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error. We are satisfied that counsel has thoroughly searched the record for any arguable appellate claim. McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429, 442, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 1904, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). Through our own independent review of the record, we have determined that counsel correctly concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Id.

      Counsel advised Irving of his right to review the record and to file a pro-se response on his own behalf. Irving has not filed a response. See Wilson, 955 S.W.2d at 698. Thus, because we have no viable points of error or issues to consider, the judgments are affirmed. We simultaneously grant counsel's motions to withdraw. See id.  

                                                                         BILL VANCE

                                                                         Justice

Before Chief Justice Davis,

           Justice Vance, and

           Justice Gray

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed July 19, 2000

Do not publish

ps">Tex. R. App. P. 80. As reformed, the judgments are affirmed.

                                                                                 BOB L. THOMAS

                                                                                 Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

          Justice Cummings and

          Justice Vance

Reformed and affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed July 25, 1991

Do not publish