Adam Casarez v. State
11-15-00092-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 17, 2015Background
- Appellant Adam Casarez pleaded guilty to second-degree felony arson and was placed on community supervision under a plea agreement.
- The State filed an application to revoke Casarez's community supervision based on alleged violations.
- After a contested revocation hearing, the trial court found the allegations true, revoked supervision, and sentenced Casarez to five years' confinement.
- Court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders-style brief, concluding the appeal was frivolous; counsel provided records and notified Casarez of his rights.
- The court independently reviewed the record under Anders/Schulman and found uncontroverted testimony (including Casarez's admissions and his CSO's testimony) supporting the revocation; no arguable grounds for appeal were found.
- The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, dismissed the appeal, and notified Casarez of his right to seek discretionary review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidentiary support existed to revoke community supervision | State: CSO testimony and appellant admissions showed violations | Casarez: (through Anders brief) no non-frivolous challenge identified | Court: Evidence (admission + uncontroverted CSO testimony) supported revocation; no reversible error |
| Whether appellate counsel properly complied with Anders procedures | State: counsel followed Anders/Schulman procedures | Casarez: no pro se response asserting noncompliance | Court: Counsel complied with procedural requirements; withdrawal allowed |
| Whether any arguable appellate issue warranted new counsel | Casarez: no specific arguable issues raised | Appellate counsel: no arguable issues after record review | Court: No arguable grounds found; appeal frivolous and dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures when counsel seeks withdrawal on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (court of appeals duties in reviewing Anders briefs)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (guidance on Anders/Schulman practice in Texas)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standards for disposing of Anders appeals)