Canuto Jason Tarango v. State
11-16-00109-CR
| Tex. App. | May 25, 2017Background
- Appellant Canuto Jason Tarango was convicted by a jury of delivery of more than four ounces but less than five pounds of marijuana and sentenced to two years in a state jail, with the sentence suspended and five years community supervision.
- The trial court’s written judgment ordered $180 in restitution to the Texas Department of Public Safety, though no restitution was pronounced orally at sentencing.
- Appellant was represented on appeal by court-appointed counsel who filed an Anders-style brief and moved to withdraw, concluding the appeal was frivolous.
- Appellant filed a pro se response raising claims including jury tampering, ineffective assistance of counsel, and a religious-freedom infringement.
- The court of appeals independently reviewed the record under Anders/Schulman procedures and found the appeal frivolous, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, modified the judgment to delete the $180 restitution, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of appellate issues / whether appeal is frivolous | Tarango asserted various claims (jury tampering, ineffective assistance, religious-rights infringement) meriting review | State argued no reversible error; counsel argued appeal frivolous | Court found appeal wholly frivolous after independent review and dismissed it |
| Counsel’s compliance with Anders/Schulman procedures | Tarango implicitly argued counsel ineffective or failed to preserve issues | Counsel provided Anders brief, record copies, and notified appellant of rights | Court held counsel complied with required Anders/Schulman procedures |
| Validity of restitution ordered in written judgment | Tarango argued (implicitly) that restitution was improper because not pronounced | State maintained written restitution but offered no evidence it was pronounced or supported | Court held restitution invalid because punishment must be orally pronounced; modified judgment to delete $180 |
| Right to petition discretionary review notice | Tarango sought appellate review options | State: procedural compliance required by counsel | Court reminded counsel of duty to notify appellant of PDR rights and advised appellant of PDR availability |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appellate counsel’s duties in Anders-type appeals)
- Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (procedures for independent appellate review of Anders briefs)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (remand when arguable grounds exist under Anders analysis)
- Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (restitution is a form of punishment and must be orally pronounced)
- Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (oral pronouncement controls over conflicting written judgment)