Sadler John Hair v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •                                     In The
    Court of Appeals
    Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
    No. 07-23-00372-CR
    SADLER JOHN HAIR, APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
    On Appeal from the 106th District Court
    Garza County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 18-3060, Honorable Reed A. Filley, Presiding
    April 30, 2024
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.
    In March of 2019, Appellant, Sadler John Hair, pleaded guilty to possession of a
    controlled substance, a third-degree felony.1         The trial court suspended Appellant’s
    sentence and placed him on community supervision for a term of six years. In July of
    2023, the State filed an application to revoke Appellant’s community supervision, alleging
    that Appellant had violated several conditions of his community supervision. The State
    1 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (c).
    claimed that Appellant had used a controlled substance without a prescription, failed to
    report to his community supervision officer as required, and failed to pay his supervision
    fees. At a hearing on the State’s motion, Appellant appeared with counsel. He pleaded
    “true” to the allegation that he failed to pay his fees and “not true” to the other allegations.
    After hearing testimony, the trial court found that Appellant had violated terms of his
    community supervision. The trial court revoked Appellant’s community supervision and
    sentenced him to ten years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas
    Department of Criminal Justice. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders2
    brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s
    motion to withdraw.
    In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has conducted
    a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no
    reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the
    controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant,
    counsel notified him of his motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of the motion,
    Anders brief, and appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se response.
    See Kelly v. State, 
    436 S.W.3d 313
    , 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed
    counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief).
    By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se response to
    2 Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    , 
    18 L. Ed. 2d 493
     (1967).
    2
    counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant has not filed a response. The State has not filed a
    brief.
    By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error
    may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently
    examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were
    preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80, 
    109 S. Ct. 346
    , 
    102 L. Ed. 2d 300
     (1988); In re Schulman, 
    252 S.W.3d at 409
    ;
    Gainous v. State, 
    436 S.W.2d 137
    , 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Following our review of
    the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there are no grounds for appellate
    review that would result in reversal of Appellant’s conviction or sentence.
    We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 See
    TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).
    Judy C. Parker
    Justice
    Do not publish.
    3 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send Appellant 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. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is
    ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted
    counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 
    252 S.W.3d at
    411 n.33.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-23-00372-CR

Filed Date: 4/30/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/2/2024