Danielle Ann Lozano v. State
08-14-00208-CR
Tex. Crim. App.Nov 4, 2015Background
- Danielle Ann Lozano pleaded guilty in 2009 to burglary of a habitation; guilt was deferred and she received four years' community supervision.
- In July 2012 the State moved to adjudicate; Lozano pled true, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years; she then sought shock probation.
- In December 2012 the court suspended the 10-year sentence and placed her on five years' community supervision under art. 42.12 §3(a).
- In January 2014 the State filed a Motion to Revoke; in June 2014 Lozano pleaded true to an amended motion alleging new offenses (fraudulent use/possession of ID info on an elderly victim).
- The trial court heard testimony, confirmed Lozano’s written and oral waivers and admonishments, and sentenced her to 10 years' imprisonment (concurrent with a companion conviction).
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal is frivolous; Lozano did not file a pro se brief or request the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lozano) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of plea to revocation | Plea was knowing and voluntary; trial court ensured admonishments and waivers were understood | Lozano did not advance a contrary argument on appeal | Court accepted record showing plea and waivers were voluntary and affirmed |
| Sufficiency of written/oral admonishments and waivers | Admonishments complied with requirements; written admonishments and judicial colloquy show informed waiver | No challenge preserved or briefed by Lozano | Court found admonishments adequate |
| Legality and pronouncement of sentence | Sentence was properly pronounced after plea and no legal bar was asserted at sentencing | Defense counsel stated no legal reason sentence could not be pronounced | Court affirmed the 10-year sentence |
| Appellate counsel's Anders compliance | Anders brief properly evaluated record and provided required certifications and notice to appellant | Lozano did not seek pro se access or file pro se brief | Court agreed appeal is frivolous and affirmed; counsel’s Anders procedures were satisfactory |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Texas guidance on content of an Anders brief)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (counsel duties when filing an Anders brief and notifying appellant)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (procedural precedent on counsel withdrawal and appellate practice)