Glen Latel Powe A/K/A Glen Powe v. State
436 S.W.3d 91
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- In May 2011, Glen Latel Powe pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and robbery and received deferred-adjudication community supervision.
- About a year later, the State filed petitions to proceed to adjudication alleging multiple supervision violations; the trial court found ten allegations true in each case and revoked supervision.
- Following an agreement with the State, Powe was adjudicated guilty of aggravated robbery and robbery and sentenced to 40 and 20 years’ confinement, to run concurrently (and two related plea-bargained cases produced concurrent 15-year sentences).
- Powe appealed, challenging (1) the trial court’s findings that two alleged deadly-conduct violations were true and (2) the voluntariness of his punishment plea and the trial court’s failure to sua sponte withdraw it.
- The State conceded many other alleged violations were supported by the record; Powe did not challenge the sufficiency of evidence for eight of the true findings.
- After sentencing, Powe sent pro se letters complaining generally that his plea was involuntary and expressing a desire to appeal; he did not request a new trial or formally move to withdraw his pleas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding two deadly-conduct allegations true | Powe: the deadly-conduct findings were improper and may have affected punishment | State: multiple other unchallenged true allegations supported adjudication; any additional deadly-conduct findings had no perceptible effect | Court: No abuse of discretion; at least one uncontested violation sufficed to adjudicate guilt, so findings harmless |
| Whether the trial court should have sua sponte withdrawn Powe’s punishment plea or granted a new trial for involuntariness | Powe: his plea was involuntary and trial court should withdraw plea / void the punishment agreement and grant new punishment trial | State: Powe’s letters did not request plea withdrawal or a new trial; sentences already pronounced; trial court lacks authority to grant new trial sua sponte; bare pro se assertions insufficient | Court: No error; trial court properly declined to act sua sponte and record lacks support for involuntariness claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (standard of review for revocation adjudication)
- Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (State must prove violations by a preponderance at revocation)
- Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (proof of a single violation is sufficient to revoke probation)
- Ross v. State, 523 S.W.2d 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (single sufficient allegation supports revocation despite defects in others)
- Zaragosa v. State, 588 S.W.2d 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (trial court may not grant a new trial on its own motion)