James Eric Grant v. State
03-15-00473-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 24, 2015Background
- In 2011 James Eric Grant pleaded guilty to possession of 1–4 grams of cocaine, admitted one prior felony enhancement, and received 10 years deferred adjudication community supervision.
- In 2013 the State filed a motion to adjudicate alleging various supervision violations (including cocaine use and financial noncompliance); an amended motion added two more allegations.
- At an adjudication hearing on May 19, 2014, Grant pled “true” to the allegations; the court adjudicated guilt and sentenced him to 18 years’ imprisonment on June 6, 2014.
- Grant’s initial appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction after he filed late; he obtained habeas relief from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for ineffective assistance in failing to timely file a notice of appeal and then filed a timely appeal.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the record contains no non-frivolous grounds for appeal and moved to withdraw, notifying Grant per Kelly v. State and supplying him means to obtain the appellate record and file a pro se response.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Grant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of charging instrument / motion to adjudicate | Motion to adjudicate need not mirror indictment; it need only give fair notice of alleged violations. | Motion was sufficient to apprise Grant of the violations. | Motion was sufficient; no defect. |
| Voluntariness / admonishments under Art. 26.13 / Padilla | Plea papers and in-court admonishments were proper; plea and stipulation of evidence were signed and acknowledged. | (No non-frivolous claim shown) | Pleas were voluntary and warnings adequate. |
| Competency / right to inquire before accepting pleas | No record-based complaint of incompetency; no trial-court duty triggered. | (No non-frivolous claim shown) | No basis to challenge competency. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to adjudicate (including Dansby issue) | Any single proven violation (Grant admitted cocaine use) suffices to support adjudication. | (No non-frivolous challenge) | Admission of cocaine use was sufficient; adjudication upheld. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (including timely notice of appeal) | Trial counsel’s performance at adjudication was adequate; even if errors existed, no reasonable probability of different result. | Grant previously obtained habeas relief for late notice of appeal; no other meritorious IAC claims in record. | No meritorious Strickland claim evident from record; appellate counsel concludes appeal frivolous. |
| Reasonableness of community-supervision conditions and sentence | Conditions reviewed and found facially reasonable; sentence (18 years) within enhanced range and not irrational. | (No preserved complaint; no timely challenge) | Conditions and sentence present no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (standard for frivolous appeals observation)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise regarding deportation consequences)
- Dansby v. State, 398 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (State need only prove one violation to support revocation/adjudication)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (requirements for notifying appellant when counsel seeks withdrawal on Anders grounds)