Bailey Renae Schmidt v. State
11-16-00290-CR
| Tex. App. | Jan 26, 2017Background
- Bailey Renae Schmidt pleaded guilty in two causes to state-jail felony endangering a child and received two-year community supervision in each.
- The State filed motions to revoke her community supervision; at the revocation hearing Schmidt pleaded "true" to the allegations in both motions.
- The trial court found the pleas true, revoked community supervision, and sentenced Schmidt to two years' confinement in state jail on each cause to run concurrently, and imposed fines totaling $1,594.
- Appellant was represented by court-appointed counsel on appeal; counsel moved to withdraw under Anders, filing briefs concluding the appeals are frivolous and providing records and notice to Schmidt; Schmidt did not file a pro se response within the time allowed.
- The court conducted an independent review under Anders/Schulman and concluded the appeals lack merit, granted counsel’s motions to withdraw, and dismissed the appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plea of "true" is sufficient to support revocation of community supervision | Schmidt would argue revocation was improper despite her plea | State argues plea of true alone supports revocation | Plea of true is sufficient to support revocation (affirmed) |
| Whether issues from the original plea can be raised on appeal from revocation | Schmidt would argue original plea defects invalidate revocation | State argues original plea issues generally cannot be raised on revocation appeal | Original-plea issues (absent a void judgment) may not be raised on revocation appeal |
| Whether appellate counsel properly followed Anders/Schulman procedures and whether appeal is frivolous | Schmidt contends counsel should remain or raise issues (no pro se response filed) | Counsel contends the appeals are frivolous and seeks withdrawal under Anders | Court finds counsel complied with Anders/Schulman and independently concurs appeals are frivolous |
| Whether appellant was advised about right to seek discretionary review | Schmidt would assert she must be told of PDR rights | State notes counsel and court must notify about PDR | Court reminds counsel to notify client of PDR rights and advises appellant she may file a petition for discretionary review |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (standards for Anders-type appellate review in Texas)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (independent appellate review when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (a plea of true is sufficient to support revocation of community supervision)
- Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (original plea issues generally not permitted on revocation appeal)
- Traylor v. State, 561 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (same principle regarding raising original plea issues on revocation)