Donna Zamarron v. State
11-17-00191-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Donna Zamarron pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a child; the trial court deferred adjudication and placed her on eight years’ community supervision under a plea agreement.
- The State later filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging four violations of her community-supervision terms.
- At the adjudication hearing Zamarron pleaded "true" to all four allegations; the trial court found them true, revoked supervision, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced her to 12 years’ confinement.
- Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw under Anders/Schulman, submitting a brief concluding the appeal is frivolous, and provided Zamarron the record and notice of her rights; Zamarron did not file a response.
- The Eleventh Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record under Anders/Schulman and concluded no arguable grounds for appeal existed, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of revocation evidence | State: any single proven violation supports revocation | Zamarron: (no arguable challenge advanced on record) | Revocation upheld; plea of true is sufficient to support adjudication |
| Ability to raise issues from original plea in revocation appeal | State: original plea issues are not available on post-revocation appeal | Zamarron: (did not successfully raise an arguable original-plea defect) | Court: issues from original plea are generally not reviewable in revocation appeals |
| Counsel's motion to withdraw under Anders/Schulman | Counsel: appeal frivolous; complied with procedural requirements | Appellant: entitled to time/notice to file pro se PDR; did not respond | Court: counsel complied; granted withdrawal; appeal dismissed |
| Whether any arguable appellate issues exist | Court (after independent review): no meritorious issues | N/A | Appeal dismissed for lack of arguable grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel withdrawing when appeal is frivolous)
- Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Texas procedures for Anders-style review and independent appellate review)
- Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (a plea of true alone can support revocation and adjudication)
- Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (one proven supervision violation is sufficient for revocation)
- Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (issues from the original plea are generally not reviewable after adjudication on revocation)
- Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (limits on raising original-plea defects in revocation appeals)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (addressing appellate counsel’s duties in Anders-type appeals)