Dion Andre Hawkins v. the State of Texas ( 2021 )

Opinion issued December 14, 2021
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-20-00657-CR
———————————
DION ANDRE HAWKINS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 25th District Court
Colorado County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 20-044
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Dion Andre Hawkins, pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony
offense of Possession of Prohibited Substance in a Correctional Facility.1 In
accordance with appellant’s plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE § 38.11.
deferred adjudication of appellant’s guilt and placed appellant on community
supervision for four years. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate
appellant’s guilt, alleging that appellant violated the terms of his community
supervision. Specifically, the State alleged that appellant failed to complete his
required residence at the Judicial District Intermediate Sanction Facility because he
was unsuccessfully discharged for noncompliance and behavior issues. Appellant
pleaded “true” to the alleged violation. Following a hearing, the trial adjudicated
appellant guilty of Possession of Prohibited Substance in a Correctional Facility and
sentenced appellant to eight years’ imprisonment. This sentence is within the
applicable range.2 Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along
with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that,
therefore, the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record and supplying this Court with references to the
record and legal authority. See id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,
812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the
record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal.
2
See TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.34(a).
2
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Appellant’s counsel has certified that he mailed a copy of the motion to
withdraw and the Anders brief to appellant and informed appellant of his right to file
a response and to access the record. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008). Furthermore, counsel certified that he sent appellant the form
motion for pro se access to the records for his response. See Kelly v. State, 436
S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant did not file a pro se response.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable
grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full
examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,
300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine
whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–
28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court is not to address merits of each claim
raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no arguable
grounds for review); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. An appellant may challenge a
holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for
3
discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178
S.W.3d at 827 n.6.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Kevin Scott Dunn must
immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of
this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as
moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Countiss.
Justice Goodman, concurring.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005).
4