Joshua Allen Schoppman v. State ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
04-15-00380-CR
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
7/8/2015 1:22:30 PM
KEITH HOTTLE
CLERK
NO. 04-15-00380-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN
4th COURT OF APPEALS
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
AT SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7/8/2015 1:22:30 PM
KEITH E. HOTTLE
JOSHUA ALLEN SCHOPPMAN, Clerk
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO THE ORDER PROPOSING TO DISMISS
THIS APPEAL FOR NO RIGHT OF APPEAL
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
Comes now JOSHUA ALLEN SCHOPPMAN, Appellant, by and through
undersigned counsel, in reply to the order of this Honorable Court dated July 1,
2015, shows the Court the following:
I. Procedural history:
Appellant was charged by indictment in cause number 2015-CR-0691 with
possession of a controlled substance, Penalty Group 1, 4 – 200 grams, alleged to
have been committed in Bexar County, Texas, on or about March 11, 2014. (CR,
4). 1
1
A felony of the second degree, in violation of TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 481.115(a) &
(d).
On May 11, 2015, pursuant to a written plea agreement with the State,
Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to the charged offense. (CR, 28-32). As part of
the plea agreement, Appellant waived the right of appeal in writing. (CR, 32).
The plea agreement provided that: (1) punishment be assessed at 10 years;
(2) there was a fine of $1,500; (3) the State recommended community supervision;
(4) this case run concurrent with two other cases; and (5) Mr. Schoppman take part
in the Substance Abuse Felony Punishment program (SAFP). The plea agreement
stated: “It is further agreed by the parties that in the event the Court assessed terms,
condition, and or a length of supervision of community supervision or deferred
adjudication different from those agreed to by the parties, that such difference shall
not constitute grounds for setting aside the Defendant’s plea in this cause.” The
plea agreement also contains the following note:
The parties are not allowed to make binding agreements regarding the
length of community supervision or the conditions of community
supervision, which are totally dependent upon the Court’s discretion.
This note was followed by a recommendation of community supervision for
a period of six years, which was explicitly declared to be non-binding. Mr.
Schoppman signed the plea agreement and the waiver of appeal. (CR, 32).
On June 3, 2015, the trial court, the Honorable Mary Roman presiding,
followed the terms of the plea agreement and sentenced Appellant to a term of 10
years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Institutional
2
Division, suspended for a period of 10 years, with a fine of $1,500. (CR, 56-57).
The trial court certified that this is a plea-bargain case, and Appellant has “NO
right of appeal.” (CR, 48). By his signature, Appellant acknowledged that he was
informed that he has no right of appeal in this case. (CR, 48).
Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal from a negotiated plea, on June 15,
2015. (CR, 58-59). On June 18, 2015, the trial court appointed the Bexar County
Public Defender to represent Appellant in this attempted appeal. (CR, 67).
II. No right of appeal:
Appellant has no right of appeal. As noted above, Appellant pleaded nolo
contendere to the charged offense pursuant to a written plea agreement with the
State. (CR, 28-32). The trial court followed the plea agreement. As part of the plea
agreement, Appellant waived the right of appeal in writing. 2 (CR, 32). The trial
court certified that this is a plea-bargain case, and Appellant has “NO right of
appeal.” (CR, 48). Appellant signed that notice. (CR, 48).
Regarding the recommendation of a six-year probation term, the plea
agreement clearly stated that that this was not a binding recommendation and that
the trial court could impose a term of community supervision that was longer than
that agreed upon (limited only by the 10-year underlying sentence). (CR, 32). The
trial court is empowered by law to determine conditions of community supervision.
2
A defendant may waive his right to appeal, if the waiver is made voluntary, knowingly, and
intelligently. Marsh v. State, 44 S.W.3d 654, 660 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
3
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.12, § 10(a); see Fielder v. State, 834 S.W.2d 609,
511 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref’d). Therefore, Mr. Schoppman’s
statement in his motion for new trial that the punishment did exceed the plea
agreement (CR, 63) is untenable.
Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The
appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of
appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P.
25.2(d). The undersigned attorney has reviewed documents including the electronic
clerk’s record of this case and can find no right of appeal for Appellant. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2) (in a plea-bargain case where the sentence did not exceed the
agreed-upon punishment, the defendant may appeal only: matters raised by written
motion and ruled upon before trial; or after getting the trial court’s permission to
appeal). Therefore, this Court has no choice but to dismiss the appeal. See Chavez
v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)(where defendant has no
right to appeal after his plea bargain, dismissal of the appeal is required, with no
inquiry by the appellate court into even possibly meritorious claims); Monreal v.
State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)(a valid waiver of appeal will
prevent a defendant from appealing without the consent of the trial court).
4
III. Relief available to Appellant:
Although the Court of Appeals is required to dismiss this this appeal,
Appellant may file an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article
11.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, after the mandate is issued. It
should be noted that if Mr. Schoppman is granted habeas relief, his plea bargain
would no longer be applicable, and he would face the full 2 – 20 year range of
punishment, with no guarantee of community supervision.
WHEREFORE, Appellant, by and through undersigned counsel, is
compelled to concede that the Honorable Court of Appeals and must dismiss this
appeal for the reasons stated above.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael D. Robbins
MICHAEL D. ROBBINS
Assistant Public Defender
Paul Elizondo Tower
101 W. Nueva St., Suite 370
San Antonio, Texas 78205
Bar No. 16984600
(210) 335-0701
FAX (210) 335-0707
mrobbins@bexar.org
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and
foregoing response has been emailed to the Bexar County District Attorney’s
Office, Appellate Division, Paul Elizondo Tower, 101 W. Nueva St., Suite 710,
San Antonio, Texas 78205, on July 8, 2015.
/s/ Michael D. Robbins
MICHAEL D. ROBBINS
Assistant Public Defender
6