Phillip Devonn Smith v. State

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-18-00036-CR
NO. 09-18-00037-CR
____________________
PHILLIP DEVONN SMITH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 13-17281 & 17-27200
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Phillip Devonn Smith appeals his convictions for the offenses of possession
of a controlled substance and evading arrest or detention. We affirm.
In 2013, Smith was charged by indictment for the offense of possession of a
controlled substance, phencyclidine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115
1
(West 2017).1 Smith pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial
court assessed punishment at ten years’ imprisonment, suspended the sentence, and
placed Smith on community supervision for a term of ten years. In December of
2015, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Community Supervision, which alleged
eight violations of the terms of his community supervision; in March of 2017, the
State filed a First Amended Motion to Revoke Community Supervision, which
alleged eleven violations of the terms of his community supervision; and in April of
2017, the State filed a Second Amended Motion to Revoke Community Supervision,
which alleged fifteen violations of the terms of his community supervision. At a
hearing in August of 2017, Smith pleaded true to one count in the Second Amended
Motion to Revoke. In January of 2018, after a pre-sentence investigation was
completed, the trial court revoked Smith’s community supervision and imposed the
previously suspended sentence of ten years’ imprisonment.
In 2017, Smith was indicted for the offense of evading arrest or detention by
use of a vehicle, and the indictment alleged two prior convictions for possession of
a controlled substance. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04 (West 2016). At a hearing
in August of 2017, Smith entered an open plea of guilty and waived a jury trial, and
1
We cite the current version of the statutes herein because subsequent
amendments do not affect our disposition.
2
subsequently, Smith filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea, which the trial court
denied. In January of 2018, after a pre-sentence investigation was completed, the
trial court sentenced Smith to twenty-five years’ imprisonment for the charge of
evading arrest, and ten years for the charge of possession of a controlled substance,
with the sentences to run concurrently.
Smith’s appointed appellate counsel filed briefs in both appellate causes that
present counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and conclude the appeals are
without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978). We granted an extension of time for Smith to file a pro se brief, and Smith
filed a pro se response in both appellate cases in which he stated that he has
“reformed [his] moral character” and he asked this Court for “the chance to prove
[his] reformed behavior.” We find that Smith’s pro se letters raise no legal basis to
support his appeals and include no citations to authority or to the record; thus, the
letters do not meet the requirements for an appellate brief and present nothing for
our review. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f), (i); Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845
(Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.); Nguyen v. Kosnoski, 93 S.W.3d 186, 188 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.).
3
Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination
of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson
v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). With respect to
both appeals, we have reviewed the entire record, counsel’s briefs, and Smith’s pro
se responses, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal in
either cause. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)
(“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered
the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found
none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new
counsel to re-brief the appeals. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments.2
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
2
Smith may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
4
Submitted on November 2, 2018
Opinion Delivered November 28, 2018
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
5