Jonathan Thomas Bennett v. State
11-17-00033-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- Jonathan Thomas Bennett pleaded guilty to possession of <1 gram methamphetamine; the trial court deferred adjudication, placed him on 3 years community supervision, and fined $1,000 per a plea agreement.
- The State later filed a motion to adjudicate (revocation). At the adjudication hearing Bennett pleaded true to eight of the State’s allegations.
- The trial court found all eleven alleged violations true, revoked community supervision, adjudicated Bennett guilty, and sentenced him to 2 years in a state jail and a $2,500 fine.
- Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders-style brief concluding the appeal is frivolous and noting counsel complied with appellate ethics/procedure and gave Bennett notice and opportunity to file a pro se response.
- The appellate court independently reviewed the record under Anders/Schulman and concluded the appeal is without merit.
- The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, dismissed the appeal, and informed Bennett of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation/adjudication was supported by the record | Bennett implicitly argued appeal meritorious (through counsel’s review) | State argued proven violations supported revocation | Court held plea of true to violations is sufficient; revocation/adjudication supported |
| Whether counsel properly sought to withdraw on appeal | Bennett could respond and seek pro se access; counsel provided required materials | Counsel argued Anders compliance and frivolity of appeal | Court held counsel complied with Anders/Schulman requirements and granted withdrawal |
| Whether appellate court must perform independent review under Anders/Schulman | Bennett had right to file response; no response filed | State implicit that independent review needed to determine frivolity | Court performed independent review and found no nonfrivolous issue |
| Whether defendant was advised of PD R rights | Bennett entitled to notice of right to petition for discretionary review | State complied by advising through counsel and court notice | Court advised Bennett of right to file PDR; affirmed procedural compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures for counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appellate counsel duties in Anders-type proceedings)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (independent review required when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (one proven violation suffices to revoke community supervision)
- Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (a plea of true alone can support revocation and adjudication)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (procedural authority cited regarding counsel withdrawal)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (procedural authority cited regarding counsel withdrawal)
- Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (procedural authority cited regarding counsel withdrawal)
- Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) (procedural authority cited regarding counsel withdrawal)
- Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005) (authority on appellate counsel withdrawal procedures)