David Chance Putman v. State

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-17-00247-CR
DAVID CHANCE PUTMAN, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 223rd District Court
Gray County, Texas
Trial Court No. 9865, Honorable Phil N. Vanderpool, Presiding
January 11, 2018
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
Appellant David Chance Putman appeals from the judgment through which the trial
court revoked his community supervision and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment
of two years. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders1 brief in support of
his motion to withdraw. We will affirm the court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
In 2014, appellant was indicted for the offense of theft of property of a value less
than $1500.2 The indictment included appellant’s previous convictions. In 2016, as part
of a plea agreement with the State, appellant pleaded guilty to the offense as charged.
In exchange, appellant was placed on community supervision for a period of three years.
His community supervision was subject to certain terms and conditions.
In 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke community supervision alleging
appellant had violated several conditions of his community supervision. The trial court
held a hearing on the State’s motion. Appellant pleaded “not true” to the State’s
allegations but admitted to several of the State’s allegations during the State’s cross-
examination of him during the hearing.
Two other witnesses testified at the hearing. A police officer testified to his March
2017 traffic stop of appellant because appellant was driving without a driver’s license.
Appellant’s community supervision officer testified to appellant’s several violations of the
terms of his community supervision. Those violations included a positive drug test and
appellant’s admission to use of methamphetamine, failure to report as required, failure to
pay fines, fees and costs, failure to complete community service hours, and failure to
complete required counseling.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found appellant violated the
provisions of his community supervision as alleged by the State and sentenced appellant
to imprisonment for a term of two years and imposed against him the originally-assessed
fine of $1000.
2 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (West Supp. 2017).
2
In support of his motion to withdraw, appellant’s appellate counsel has certified he
has conducted a conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, it reflects
no potentially plausible basis for reversal of appellant’s conviction. Anders, 386 U.S. at
744-45; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel discusses
why, under the controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. High v. State,
573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has further demonstrated he has
complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of
the brief to appellant, (2) notifying him of his right to review the record and providing him
with a copy of the appellate record, and (3) informing him he may file a pro se response
if he desired to do so. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408; see Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s obligations on filing a motion
to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court granted appellant an
opportunity to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant did not file
a response.
We have conducted our own review of the entire record to assess the accuracy of
counsel’s conclusions and to independently determine whether there are any non-
frivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court and which might support the appeal.
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; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991). We have found no such issues.
After carefully reviewing the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we conclude
there are no plausible grounds for appellate review. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
3
826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).
James T. Campbell
Justice
Do not publish.
3 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client
a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file
a pro se petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. TEX. R. APP.
P. 48.4.
4