Caleb Luke Powell v. State
07-14-00394-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 14, 2015Background
- In April 2012 Caleb Luke Powell pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana (more than four ounces but five pounds or less) and received five years deferred adjudication community supervision under a plea bargain.
- In June 2014 the State filed a motion to adjudicate, alleging multiple supervision violations (new family-assault-related offenses/failed to report arrest timely; injurious/vicious habits; associating with disreputable persons/places; failure to complete required community service; curfew violations).
- At the revocation/adjudication hearing Powell pled not true to the alleged new offenses/failure-to-report allegation but pled true to the other four allegations and signed a stipulation of evidence.
- Evidence included testimony from Powell’s wife about an arrest for family assault (charges later dropped), the community supervision officer’s testimony that Powell failed to report the arrest within ten days and admitted alcohol use and curfew violations, and Powell’s own testimony offering a contrary account and claiming he reported the arrest to a San Antonio officer.
- The trial court found the failure-to-report allegation not true but found the remaining allegations true, revoked deferred adjudication, and assessed 18 months in state jail, a $1,500 fine, and $140 restitution.
- Powell moved for new trial and arrest of judgment; the court denied relief. Counsel filed an Anders brief seeking to withdraw; Powell filed a pro se response. The court of appeals independently reviewed the record, found no non-frivolous appellate issues, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to revoke deferred adjudication | State: preponderance supports revocation based on at least one proven violation (pleas of true and testimony) | Powell: disputed some facts, argued timely reporting/miscommunication excused failure-to-report and contested other allegations | Affirmed — plea(s) of true plus evidence supported revocation; a single proven violation is sufficient |
| Effect of plea(s) of true at adjudication hearing | State: pleas of true are sufficient to support revocation | Powell: sought to contest factual basis despite pleas and present mitigating testimony | Held that pleas of true standing alone support revocation; here pleas + evidence justified revocation |
| Standard of review for adjudication after deferred adjudication | State: appellate review is abuse-of-discretion like revocation hearings | Powell: argued legal error or excessive sentence | Court applied abuse-of-discretion standard and found no abuse |
| Adequacy of Anders procedure and counsel’s motion to withdraw | State: counsel complied with Anders/In re Schulman procedures and provided notice | Powell: filed pro se response asserting issues but no preserved non-frivolous errors | Court independently reviewed record, found appeal frivolous, granted withdrawal and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel seeking to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (procedural requirements for Anders-style brief and counsel withdrawal in Texas)
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard: adjudication after deferred adjudication reviewed like revocation—abuse of discretion)
- Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (State must prove violation by preponderance in revocation proceedings)
- Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (single proven violation is sufficient to support revocation)
- Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (a plea of true alone is sufficient to support revocation)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (appellate options when counsel files an Anders brief; court may issue opinion if appeal is frivolous)