Bailey Phillips v. State
11-16-00159-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 27, 2016Background
- Bailey Phillips pleaded guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and possession of methamphetamine; the trial court assessed punishment and placed her on two years of community supervision for each offense.
- The State later filed motions to revoke Phillips’s community supervision in both causes; at the revocation hearing the State abandoned all but one allegation in each motion.
- Phillips pleaded "true" to the sole remaining allegation in each cause; the trial court found the pleas true and revoked community supervision in both cases.
- The court sentenced Phillips to two years in state jail for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and two years in the TDCJ Institutional Division for possession of methamphetamine, to run concurrently.
- Court-appointed appellate counsel filed Anders-style motions to withdraw and briefs concluding the appeals were frivolous, provided records and notice to Phillips, and Phillips did not file a pro se response despite being given extra time.
- The court independently reviewed the records under Anders/Schulman, concluded no reversible error existed, granted counsel’s motions to withdraw, and dismissed the appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Phillips) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Is a plea of true sufficient to support revocation of community supervision? | Plea of true supports revocation. | (No contest recorded) | Yes; a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to revoke. |
| 2. May Phillips raise challenges to her original guilty pleas in a revocation appeal? | Challenges to original plea are barred in revocation appeal absent a void judgment. | Phillips sought review of underlying plea issues (implied). | No; issues from the original plea generally cannot be raised on revocation appeal. |
| 3. Did appellate counsel satisfy Anders/Schulman procedures to withdraw? | Counsel complied with Anders/Schulman requirements and provided records/notice to appellant. | (Phillips did not file response contesting compliance.) | Yes; counsel complied and withdrawal was permitted. |
| 4. Should the appeals be dismissed as frivolous? | The appeals are without merit after independent review. | Phillips did not submit argument showing merit. | Yes; independent review found no reversible error and appeals were dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (Anders procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App.) (procedures for court’s independent review following Anders brief)
- Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App.) (a plea of true is sufficient to support revocation)
- Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. Crim. App.) (claims about original plea generally not reviewable in revocation appeals)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App.) (addressing appointed counsel’s responsibilities on appeal)