Donathan Ellsworth v. State
11-16-00329-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- Donathan Ellsworth pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation and, per a plea agreement, was convicted and placed on community supervision with an assessed ten-year sentence and $1,000 fine.
- The State filed a motion to revoke Ellsworth’s community supervision.
- After a contested revocation hearing, the trial court found two allegations true, revoked community supervision, and imposed the original ten-year sentence and fine.
- Appellant’s court‑appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders-style brief concluding the appeal is frivolous; counsel provided the records and notified Ellsworth of his rights.
- The court of appeals independently reviewed the record under Anders/Schulman procedures and concluded the appeal is without merit.
- The motion to withdraw was granted, the appeal dismissed, and Ellsworth was advised he may seek discretionary review to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether any appealable, nonfrivolous issue exists from revocation proceedings | Ellsworth implicitly argued errors exist warranting reversal (via appeal) | State argued revocation supported by record; no reversible error | Court found no arguable grounds; appeal frivolous and dismissed |
| Whether counsel complied with Anders/Schulman procedures | N/A (appellant raised no successful procedural challenge) | Counsel asserted compliance with Anders notice, record provision, and advising client | Court found counsel complied with required procedures |
| Whether counsel may be permitted to withdraw | N/A | Counsel sought withdrawal based on frivolous appeal conclusion | Motion to withdraw granted |
| Whether remand for new counsel is required | N/A | State opposed remand since appeal frivolous | Court did not remand; no arguable issues found |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes procedures when counsel believes appeal is frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (explains appellate court duties when reviewing Anders briefs)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (clarifies counsel’s obligations in Anders-style appeals)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (addresses appellate options after Anders/Schulman review)