Vincent Lee Seaman v. State ( 2020 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-18-00446-CR
___________________________
VINCENT LEE SEAMAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 372nd District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1491876W
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Kerr, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain, Appellant Vincent Lee Seaman pleaded guilty in
2017 to first-degree-felony engaging in organized criminal activity by committing
aggravated assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 71.02. He was placed on deferred-
adjudication community supervision for five years. In June 2018, the State petitioned
to proceed to adjudication based on ten alleged violations of the community-
supervision terms, including allegations of threatening multiple police officers with a
deadly weapon (his car), failing to report to his probation officer, and failing to submit
to drug testing. A hearing was held in September 2018, and the trial court found five
allegations true, adjudicated Appellant guilty, and sentenced him to 40 years.
Appellant now appeals.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel and a brief in support of that motion. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the
requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id. at 741–
42, 87 S. Ct. at 1399. Appellant filed a response, but he did not demonstrate any
arguable grounds for relief.
As the reviewing appellate court, we must independently examine the record to
decide whether counsel is correct in determining that an appeal in this case is
frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Having
2
carefully reviewed the record and the Anders brief, we agree with counsel that the
appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth
Bonnie Sudderth
Chief Justice
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: January 23, 2020
3