Javier Casarez v. State
11-16-00201-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 8, 2016Background
- Appellant Javier Casarez pleaded guilty to DWI (third-degree felony), was convicted, fined $3,000, and placed on five years community supervision pursuant to a plea agreement.
- The State later moved to revoke Casarez’s community supervision; at the revocation hearing Casarez pleaded "true" to six alleged violations.
- The trial court found the allegations true, revoked supervision, sentenced Casarez to five years’ confinement, and imposed a $2,652 fine.
- Court-appointed appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders, filing a brief concluding the appeal is frivolous and providing Casarez the record and notice of his right to file a pro se response; Casarez did not file a response within the allotted time.
- The appellate court conducted an independent review under Anders/Schulman and concluded there were no arguable grounds for appeal, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel complied with Anders requirements to withdraw | Counsel asserts she complied with Anders and related Texas authorities and that appeal is frivolous | State does not contest Anders compliance and urges dismissal | Court finds counsel complied and allows withdrawal |
| Whether plea of "true" supports revocation | Casarez implicitly argues revocation improper (grounds not preserved) | State relies on Casarez’s plea of true to violations | Plea of true alone is sufficient to support revocation; revocation affirmed |
| Whether issues from original plea can be raised on revocation appeal | Casarez attempts (implicitly) to challenge original plea or punishment | State contends issues from original plea are not cognizable after revocation absent void judgment | Court holds original plea issues may not be raised on revocation appeal absent void judgment |
| Whether appeal presents any arguable grounds requiring merits briefing | Counsel found no nonfrivolous issues after record review | State supports dismissal based on record and law | Court independently reviews record and agrees appeal is without merit, dismissing it |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures for counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Texas procedures for Anders-style briefs and independent appellate review)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (counsel obligations in Anders-like withdrawals)
- Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (proof of one violation suffices for revocation)
- Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (plea of true is sufficient to support revocation)
- Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (original-plea issues generally not reviewable on revocation appeal)