James Cody Sullivan v. State ( 2011 )

NO. 07-10-00324-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
NOVEMBER 15, 2011
JAMES CODY SULLIVAN, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF CASTRO COUNTY;
NO. A3000-0504; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID JR., JUDGE
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, James Cody Sullivan, pleaded guilty to forgery of a financial
instrument, a state jail felony, and was sentenced to two years in a State Jail Facility
(SJF), however the term of confinement was suspended and appellant was placed on
community supervision for a period of four years. Thereafter, an agreed order
modifying appellant’s community supervision was filed that required appellant to
complete the program at the Brownfield Regional Treatment Center. After completion of
this program, a second and ultimately, a third order modifying appellant’s community
supervision were filed. Finally, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community
supervision. At the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke community supervision,
appellant pleaded “True” to the allegations contained in paragraphs two through five.
After receiving appellant’s pleas of “True” and other evidence, the trial court revoked
appellant’s community supervision and sentenced him to serve two years in a SJF.
Appellant has appealed the decision of the trial court to revoke his community
supervision. We 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. Additionally, 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. Appellant has not filed a
response.
By his Anders brief, counsel raised a ground that could possibly support an
appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed this ground 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.
2
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.
Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court=s
judgment is affirmed.1
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
1
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.
3