Brian Idell Tennison v. State
11-16-00162-CR
| Tex. App. | Jan 26, 2017Background
- Appellant Brian Idell Tennison pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (third-degree felony); court assessed punishment and placed him on five years community supervision pursuant to a plea agreement.
- The State filed a motion to revoke community supervision alleging five violations; at the revocation hearing Tennison pleaded true to four of the five allegations.
- The trial court found those four allegations true, revoked community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of five years confinement and a $1,000 fine.
- Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders/Schulman brief concluding there were no arguable issues; counsel provided Tennison with the record and notice of his right to file a pro se response.
- Tennison did not file a pro se response within the additional 30 days granted by the court.
- The appellate court independently reviewed the record, agreed there were no arguable grounds for appeal, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation was supported by sufficient evidence | Tennison challenged revocation implicitly by appealing the proceedings | State argued proof of one violation or a plea of true is sufficient to support revocation | Revocation upheld; plea of true and proof of violations suffice to support revocation |
| Whether issues from original plea can be raised on revocation appeal | Tennison could attempt to challenge the original plea or plea proceedings | State: challenges to original plea are generally not cognizable in revocation appeals absent a void judgment | Court held original-plea issues are not reviewable on revocation appeal absent void judgment |
| Whether counsel complied with Anders/Schulman such that counsel may withdraw | Tennison (by implication) relies on counsel to identify arguable issues | Counsel filed an Anders/Schulman brief, provided records and notice, and advised of PDR right | Court found counsel complied with required procedures and granted withdrawal |
| Whether the appeal presented any arguable grounds for reversal | Tennison offered no pro se response asserting arguable errors | State maintained the record showed no reversible error and supported dismissal | Court independently reviewed record and dismissed appeal as frivolous/no arguable issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Texas procedures for Anders-style brief and independent appellate review)
- Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (proof of one violation suffices to revoke community supervision)
- Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (a plea of true alone can support revocation)
- Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (issues from original plea generally not cognizable on revocation appeal)