Taylor Ray Arnath A/K/A Taylor Arnath v. State ( 2014 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-14-00053-CR
________________________
TAYLOR RAY ARNATH AKA TAYLOR ARNATH, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 297th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1239693D; Honorable Everett Young, Presiding
September 8, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
In August 2011, pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant, Taylor Ray Arnath, aka
Taylor Arnath, was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for five
years for burglary of a habitation and assessed a $500 fine.1 In December 2012, the
State moved to proceed to adjudication alleging multiple violations of the terms and
conditions of community supervision. In October 2013, by its third amended petition to
1
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a) (West 2011). As alleged in this cause, burglary of a
habitation is a second degree felony.
proceed to adjudication, the State asserted eight violations of community supervision,
including four new offenses. At a hearing on the State’s allegations, Appellant entered
pleas of true to all eight allegations and the trial court heard testimony. Based on
Appellant’s pleas of true and the testimony, the trial court found that Appellant violated
the terms and conditions of community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of the original
offense and sentenced him to eight years confinement. In presenting this appeal,
counsel has filed an Anders2 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We affirm and
grant counsel=s motion.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a
conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no
potentially plausible basis to support an appeal. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406
(Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling
authorities, the appeal is frivolous. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated that he has complied with the requirements of
Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying
him of his right to file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and (3) informing him of
his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.3 In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at
408.4 By letter, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to exercise his right to file a
2
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
3
This appeal was submitted before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued its decision in
Kelly v. State, __ S.W.3d __, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 911 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014).
4
Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant=s Right of Appeal, counsel must
comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within
five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together
with notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
at 408 n.22 & at 411 n.35.
2
response to counsel=s brief, should he be so inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did not
file a response to the Anders brief. Neither did the State favor us with a brief.
BACKGROUND
Appellant, a very young man, suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder and
adult antisocial behavior. His history of criminal activity began while he was a juvenile.
While on community supervision for burglary of a habitation, he was afforded several
opportunities to remain on community supervision with amended conditions. The
testimony at the revocation hearing established that with proper medication and
treatment, Appellant could live a normal life.
By the Anders brief, counsel evaluates potential errors in Appellant’s case,
including his competency. He concludes, however, that no arguable issues exist to
present on appeal.
DECISION TO ADJUDICATE—STANDARD OF REVIEW
An appeal from a trial court's order adjudicating guilt is reviewed in the same
manner as a revocation hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 5(b)
(West Supp. 2014). When reviewing an order revoking community supervision imposed
under an order of deferred adjudication, the sole question before this Court is whether
the trial court abused its discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006); Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Jackson v.
State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). In a revocation proceeding, the
State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the probationer violated a
condition of community supervision as alleged in the motion. Cobb v. State, 851
3
S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). If the State fails to meet its burden of proof,
the trial court abuses its discretion in revoking community supervision. Cardona, 665
S.W.2d at 494. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a revocation,
we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Jones v.
State, 589 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Additionally, a plea of true
standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s revocation order. Moses v. State,
590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).
We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there
are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409;
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no such
issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After
reviewing the record and counsel=s brief, we agree with counsel there is no plausible
basis for reversal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
CONCLUSION
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed and counsel's motion to withdraw is
granted.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
Do not publish.
4