Franklin Lee Ray v. State
11-16-00093-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- Franklin Lee Ray was convicted of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit assault; sentence: 10 years confinement and $2,500 fine, suspended, with seven years community supervision.
- The State filed multiple motions to revoke Ray’s community supervision; the court modified supervision terms and later held a revocation hearing on a subsequent motion.
- At the revocation hearing, Ray pleaded true to all three allegations in the State’s motion to revoke; the court found the second and third allegations true and revoked supervision.
- The trial court imposed the original 10-year sentence and ordered payment of the unpaid fine balance.
- Ray’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders-style motion to withdraw, concluding the appeal was frivolous, provided required materials to Ray, and Ray did not file a pro se response despite extensions.
- The appellate court independently reviewed the record under Anders/Schulman, agreed the appeal was without merit, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plea of true can alone support revocation of community supervision | State: a defendant’s plea of true is sufficient to support revocation | Ray: (no argument preserved) pleaded true but sought appellate review | Held: plea of true standing alone supports revocation (court cites Moses) |
| Whether appellate counsel complied with Anders/Schulman requirements to withdraw | State (via counsel): counsel complied with procedural requirements, supplied record and notice to Ray | Ray: did not file a response despite opportunities | Held: counsel complied with Anders/Schulman and withdrawal is proper |
| Whether the appeal presents any non-frivolous grounds meriting review | Counsel: appeal is frivolous and without merit after review | Ray: no pro se grounds were presented | Held: independent appellate review found no meritorious issues; appeal dismissed |
| Whether appellant must be advised of right to seek discretionary review | Court: counsel must notify client of right to file PDR; appellate court reiterates right | Ray: not contesting lack of notice | Held: court reminds counsel and appellant of right to file a petition for discretionary review under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68 |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requiring counsel to move to withdraw when appeal is frivolous and to provide defendant the record and notice)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (Texas guidance on Anders-type procedures for appointed counsel)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (procedures for independent appellate review when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (a plea of true alone is sufficient to support revocation of community supervision)