Rachel Michelle Kirksey v. State

ACCEPTED
12-14-00349-CR
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
2/5/2015 12:53:31 PM
CATHY LUSK
CLERK
No. 12-14-00349-CR and 12-14-00354-CR
FILED IN
12th COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS
TYLER, TEXAS 2/5/2015 12:53:31 PM
CATHY S. LUSK
Clerk
RACHEL MICHELLE KIRKSEY
Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee
On Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 114-0777-14 and 114-0778-14
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
Austin Reeve Jackson
Texas Bar No. 24046139
112 East Line, Suite 310
Tyler, TX 75702
Telephone: (903) 595-6070
Facsimile: (866) 387-0152
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Attorney for Appellant
Appellate Counsel:
Austin Reeve Jackson
112 East Line, Suite 310
Tyler, TX 75702
Trial Counsel:
A.M. Thompson
2108 South Wall Ave.
Tyler, TX 75701
Attorney for the State on Appeal
Michael J. West
Assistant District Attorney, Smith County
4th Floor, Courthouse
100 North Broadway
Tyler, TX 75702
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .................................................................................. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................... iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................................ 2
ISSUE PRESENTED ....................................................................................................................... 2
STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................................................. 2
PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION OF THE RECORD ................................................................. 3
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .............................................................................................. 4
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 4
I. THE TRIAL COURT ACTED WITHIN ITS DISCRETION IN REVOKING
APELLANT'S COMMUNITY SUPERVISION ................................................................... 4
Standard of Review .................................................................................................................... 4
A. There was Legally Sufficient Evidence to Support the Revocation .................................... 5
1. The Plea ......................................................................................................... 6
2. Sufficiency of the Evidence ........................................................................... 6
B. Appellant's Setence was Within the Statutory Range of Punishment .................................. 7
C. Appellant Received Effective Assistance of Counsel .......................................................... 9
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ................................................................................................... 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................................................................................... 11
CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL .................................................................................................... 12
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................................................. 12
iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:
Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) ..................................................... 3, 10, 12
Robinson v. California,
370 U.S. 660, 82 S. Ct. 1417, 8 L. Ed. 2d 758 (1962) ....................................................... 8
Solem v. Helm,
463 U.S. 277, 103 S. Ct. 3001, 77 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1983) ................................................... 8
Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 105 S. Ct. 1965, 85 L. Ed. 2d 344 (1984) ................................................ 9
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
Aguirre-Mata v. State,
125 S.W.3d 473 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003)........................................................................ 6
Cardona v. State,
665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984)........................................................................ 4
Cobb v. State,
851 S.W.2d 871 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993)........................................................................ 7
Cole v. State,
578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979) ........................................................................ 7
Ex parte Brown,
158 S.W.3d 449 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) .......................................................................... 9
Garcia v. State,
57 S.W.3d 436 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) ......................................................................... 10
Hernandez v. State,
988 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) ......................................................................... 9
Jackson v. State,
877 S.W.2d 768 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994) ....................................................................... 10
iv
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CON’T):
Jordan v. State,
495 S.W.2d 949 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973) ......................................................................... 8
Lyles v. State,
850 S.W.2d 497 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993) ........................................................................ 4
Mendez v. State,
138 S.W.3d 334 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) ........................................................................ 6
Miniel v. State,
831 S.W.2d 310 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) ....................................................................... 10
Moore v. State,
605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980) ........................................................................ 7
Moore v. State,
694 S.W.2d 528 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985)........................................................................ 9-10
Rhoades v. State,
934 S.W.2d 113 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) ....................................................................... 8
Rickles v. State,
202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) ........................................................................ 4, 7
Stafford v. State,
813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) ....................................................................... 10
Thompson v. State,
9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) ........................................................................... 10
TEXAS COURTS OF APPEAL:
Bolden v. State,
73 S.W.3d 428 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) .................................................... 8
Brooks v. State,
995 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1999) ......................................................... 7
Canseco v. State,
199 S.W.3d 437 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) .............................................. 4
v
TEXAS COURTS OF APPEAL (CON’T):
Castaneda v. State,
135 S.W.3d 719 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2003) .................................................................. 8
Duke v. State,
2 S.W.3d 512 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1999) ............................................................. 4
Hays v. State,
933 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1996) ........................................................ 5, 7
Joseph v. State,
3 S.W.3d 627 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) ................................................ 5
Lewis v. State,
195 S.W.3d 205 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2006) ......................................................... 5
Mays v. State,
904 S.W.2d 290 (Tex.App.—Fort Wroth 1995) ........................................................... 3
Noland v. State,
264 S.W.3d 144 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) ............................................. 8
Roman v. State,
145 S.W.3d 316 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004)................................................ 9
Sims v. State,
326 S.W.3d 707 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2010) ............................................................ 6
Trevino v. State,
174 S.W.3d 925 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2005) ......................................................... 8
STATUTES AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:
TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.115 ........................................................................ 8
TEX. PEN. CODE § 12.34 ................................................................................................... 9
TEX. PEN. CODE § 12.35 ................................................................................................... 8
TEX. PEN. CODE § 37.09 ................................................................................................... 8-9
TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1 ......................................................................................................... 6, 8
vi
STATUTES AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS (CON’T):
U.S. CONST. AMEND. VIII ................................................................................................ 7, 8
U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV ................................................................................................ 8
vii
No. 12-14-00349-CR and 12-14-00354-CR
IN THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
RACHEL MICHELLE KIRKSEY
Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee
On Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 114-0777-14 and 114-0778-14
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT:
COMES NOW, Austin Reeve Jackson, attorney for Rachael Kirksey and
files this brief pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and would
show the Court as follows:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Rachel Kirksey seeks to appeal a revocation of community supervision in
two cases before the Court. (I CR1 78; I CR2 75).1 After being indicted for the
offenses of Possession of a Controlled Substance and Tampering with Evidence,
Ms. Kirksey was placed on community supervision in each case after entering a
plea of “guilty” in the 114th District Court of Smith County. (I CR1 35; I CR2
36). In November of last year the trail court revoked that community supervision
and imposed in each case a sentence of confinement. (I CR1 78; I CR2 75). Sen-
tence was pronounced on 6 November 2014 and notice of appeal then timely filed.
(I CR1 78, 84; I CR2 75, 81).
ISSUE PRESENTED
THE TRIAL COURT ACTED WITHIN ITS DISCRETION IN
REVOKING APPELLANT’S COMMUNITY SUPERVISION.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Following her indictment for the two cases currently before the court, Ms.
Kirksey elected to enter a plea of “guilty” in each case in exchange for an agreed
recommendation of community supervision. (III RR 12-13). In August of last
year the 114th District Court of Smith County accepted those pleas and followed
the recommendation in each case. (III RR 20).
1
The Clerk’s Record in cause 12-14-00349-CR / 114-0777-14 is cited as “CR1” and that of 12-
14-00354-CR / 114-0778-14 as “CR2.”
2
Unfortunately, just a few months later Ms. Kirksey was once again before
the court on an application to revoke. (IV RR 1). To the alleged violations made
against her Ms. Kirksey entered pleas of “true.” (IV RR 4, 11-13). Finding the
pleas to be freely and knowingly made, and finding that the same established a vio-
lation of the terms and conditions of her community supervision, the trial court re-
voked Ms. Kirksey’s probation. (IV RR 30). In the possession case Ms. Kirksey
was sentenced to serve a term of twelve months’ confinement while a term of five
years’ confinement was imposed in the tampering case. (Id.). Sentence was pro-
nounced on 6 November and notice of appeal then timely filed. (I CR1 78, 84; I
CR2 75, 81).
PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION OF THE RECORD
In accordance with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), counsel has reviewed the record
and determined that, in his professional opinion, the record contains no reversible
error or jurisdictional defects. Under circumstances where there appears to be no
arguable grounds for reversal on appeal, counsel is required to present a profes-
sional evaluation of the record supporting this assertion. See Mays v. State, 904
S.W.2d 290, 922-23 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).
3
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Pursuant to the responsibilities and requirements of the governing code of
professional conduct, a thorough review of the record has been made. Counsel’s
research has revealed no arguable, non-frivolous grounds that could be advanced in
support of a claim that there exists reversible error in the trial, judgment, or sen-
tence of Appellant. A review and analysis of any potential issues is herein present-
ed for the Court.
ARGUMENT
Standard of Review
Where a trial court revokes a previously imposed term of community super-
vision the decision to do so is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.
Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006); Cardona v. State,
665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts
without reference to guiding principles. Lyles v. State, 850 S.W.2d 497, 502
(Tex.Crim.App. 1993). This review considers the record in the light most favora-
ble to the trial court’s decision. Duke v. State, 2 S.W.3d 512, 515 (Tex.App.—San
Antonio 1999, no pet.).
Proof of even a single violation is sufficient to support a revocation. Can-
seco v. State, 199 S.W.3d 437, 439 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet.
ref’d). Therefore, in order to prevail an appellant must show that taking the evi-
4
dence in the light most favorable to the court’s decision there is insufficient evi-
dence to support each and every finding of the court. Lewis v. State, 195 S.W.3d
205, 209 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2006, no pet.); Joseph v. State, 3 S.W.3d 627,
640 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). Additionally, a plea of true,
standing alone, is sufficient to support a trial court’s revocation of community su-
pervision. See Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1996,
no pet.) (holding that a plea of “true” to any violation can by itself support a revo-
cation).
I. THE TRIAL COURT ACTED WITHIN ITS DISCRE-
TION IN REVOKING APPELLANT’S COMMUNITY
SUPERVISION.
A. There Was Legally Sufficient Evidence to Support the Revocation.
By way of a written motion to proceed to final adjudication, Ms. Kirksey
was alleged to have violated the terms of her community supervision. (I CR1 70; I
CR2 69). The application included the following allegations:
Application Paragraph Allegation
I Identity of Defendant
II Failure to Report
III Failure to Report
IV Failure to Pay Costs and Fees
V Failure to Pay Costs and Fees2
2
This
allegation
appeared
only
in
cause
114-­‐0777-­‐14.
(I
CR
72).
5
(Id.). To all paragraphs pleas of “true” were entered. (IV RR 29). Thus, if the
pleas of “true” were entered freely, knowingly, and voluntarily, the trial court had
sufficient evidence to revoke Ms. Kirksey’s community supervision. Hays, 933
S.W.2d at 661.
1. The Plea
Before accepting her plea, the trial court advised Ms. Kirksey as to the con-
sequences of entering a plea of true, including the potential range of punishment,
and also advised her of the right to remain silent and the right to have a hearing on
the allegations at issue. (IV RR 6-14). After having been so advised, Ms. Kirksey
persisted in her desire to enter pleas of “true” and gave no indication that she was
doing so involuntarily. (Id.); see Sims v. State, 326 S.W.3d 707, 713 (Tex.App.—
Texarkana 2010, pet. struck) (citing Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 350
(Tex.Crim.App. 2004)) (holding that challenges to the voluntariness of a plea must
be raised before the trial court in order to preserve the error for appeal); see also
TEX. R. APP. PROC. 33.1(a)(1). Finally, could any error be advanced regarding the
trial court’s admonishments, such error would be non-constitutional error subject
to a harm analysis and, given the record before the Court, Ms. Kirksey could not
meet that burden in this case. See Aguirre-Mata v. State, 125 S.W.3d 473, 474-76
(Tex.Crim.App. 2003).
6
2. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The State must prove allegations in a revocation setting by a preponderance
of the evidence. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). Evi-
dence, therefore, is sufficient if an analysis of its comparative weight tends to sup-
port the trial court’s conclusion that at least one condition of probation was violat-
ed. See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 764 (holding that evidence is sufficient to support a
revocation where the greater weight of the credible evidence before the court sup-
ports a reasonable belief that a condition of probation has been violated). Moreo-
ver, a plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support a trial court’s revocation
of community supervision. See Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex.App.—
San Antonio 1996, no pet.) (holding that a plea of “true” to any violation can by
itself support a revocation). Thus, where the Court finds that a voluntary plea of
true was entered, as was the case here, the evidence is legally sufficient to support
the revocation. (IV RR 14); Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Crim.App.
1980); Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979); Brooks v. State,
995 S.W.2d 762, 763 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.).
B. Appellant’s Sentence Was Within the Statutory Range of Punishment.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of “cruel and unusual pun-
ishment.” U.S. CONST. AMEND. VIII. The Eighth Amendment is applicable to the
7
states through the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV; Robinson v.
California, 370 U.S. 660, 667, 82 S. Ct. 1417, 8 L. Ed. 2d 758 (1962).
Here, neither Ms. Kirksey nor her trial counsel raised the issue of cruel or
excessive punishment at the time sentence was imposed and, therefore, this issue
has likely been waived on appeal. See TEX. R. APP. PROC. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Rhoades
v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d
144, 151-52 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d); Castaneda v. State,
135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.); but see Solem v. Helm,
463 U.S. 277, 288, 103 S. Ct. 3001, 3008-09, 77 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1983) (noting excep-
tion to this general rule if sentence assessed is grossly disproportionate to the
crime). Additionally, the sentences imposed were not only within the proper range
of punishment for each offense, but also were each one-half of the potential sen-
tence Ms. Kirksey was facing; a factor tending to weigh against a finding of an
Eighth Amendment violation. Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949, 952
(Tex.Crim.App. 1973); Trevino v. State, 174 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tex.App.—Corpus
Christi 2005, pet. ref’d); Bolden v. State, 73 S.W.3d 428, 434 (Tex.App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d); see also TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.115 (de-
fining possession of a controlled substance, as alleged, as a state jail felony); TEX.
PEN CODE § 12.35 (punishment range for a state jail felony); TEX. PEN. CODE §
8
37.09 (defining tampering with evidence as a third degree felony); TEX. PEN. CODE
§ 12.34 (punishment range for a third degree felony).
Finally, due process requires that the trial court consider the full range of
punishment for an offense and weigh both mitigating and incriminating evidence in
the assessment of sentence. Ex parte Brown, 158 S.W.3d 449, 454
(Tex.Crim.App. 2005). In the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, on ap-
peal the Court will presume that the trial court did not act arbitrarily and consid-
ered all of the evidence before it. Roman v. State, 145 S.W.3d 316, 319
(Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d). Given the record before the
Court, this presumption cannot be overcome on direct appeal.
C. Appellant Received Effective Assistance of Counsel.
Effective assistance of counsel is to be evaluated under the standard enunci-
ated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 105 S. Ct. 1965, 85 L. Ed. 2d 344
(1984); see also, Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). To
prevail in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1)
that her trial counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonable-
ness, and (2) that a reasonable probability exists that, but for trial counsel’s alleged
errors, the result would have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88. On
appeal, the defendant carries the burden of proving ineffective assistance by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence. Moore v. State, 694 S.W.2d 528, 531 (Tex.Crim.App.
9
1985). Finally, trial counsel’s performance is not to be judged with the benefit of
hindsight. Miniel v. State, 831 S.W.2d 310, 323 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992).
With this standard in mind, a comprehensive review of the record has been
made of the proceedings including pretrial matters, Ms. Kirksey’s original plea, the
revocation hearing, and the arguments of counsel. Here, that review fails to shows,
given the totality of the representation provided by trial counsel, any basis from
which to argue that ineffective assistance was rendered. See, e.g., Garcia v. State,
57 S.W.3d 436, 440 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 812
(Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex.Crim.App.
1994).
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
As counsel was unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal, he is required
to move for leave to withdraw. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503
(Tex.Crim.App. 1991).
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, counsel prays that the Court,
after affording Ms. Kirksey the opportunity to review the record and file a pro se
brief should she desire to do so, accept this brief and grant the attached Motion to
Withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct.
1396 (1967).
10
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson
Texas Bar No. 24046139
112 East Line, Suite 310
Tyler, TX 75702
Telephone: (903) 595-6070
Facsimile: (866) 387-0152
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of this brief was delivered to counsel for
the State by facsimile on this the 5th day of February 2015.
/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson
11
CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL
The attorney’s role as an advocate requires that I support my client’s appeal
to the best of my ability. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738. I, Austin Reeve
Jackson, counsel of record in this appeal, do hereby state that I have diligently
searched the entire record in this cause. I have researched the law applicable to the
facts and issues contained therein, and it is my professional opinion that the record
reflects no reversible error. In conformity with the applicable law pertaining to an
appeal of this nature, I have set forth any potential grounds of error and have
briefed them to the extent possible. I have further caused a copy of this brief to be
served by mail on Appellant, accompanied by a letter informing Appellant of the
right to examine the record for the purpose of filing a pro se brief.
/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this document complies with the requirements of Rule 9.4 and
consists of 2,282 words.
/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson
12