Joseph Joe Siedl v. State
11-16-00309-CR
| Tex. App. | May 25, 2017Background
- Appellant Joseph Joe Siedl pleaded guilty to engaging in organized criminal activity; the trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on five years' community supervision pursuant to a plea agreement.
- The State filed a motion to revoke supervision and adjudicate guilt; after a hearing (which overlapped with a related criminal trial), the trial court found the alleged violations true, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced Siedl to ten years' confinement.
- Appellant was represented by court-appointed counsel, who moved to withdraw and filed an Anders-style brief asserting there were no arguable issues for appeal; counsel provided required notices and materials to Appellant.
- This Court conducted an independent review under Anders/Schulman and concluded the appeal was meritless, but identified a nonreversible discrepancy between the oral sentence and the written judgment (a $295 fine included in the written judgment but not pronounced orally).
- The Court modified the judgment to delete the $295 fine, granted counsel's motion to withdraw, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to revoke community supervision and adjudicate guilt | State: testimony proved violations alleged in motion to adjudicate, one violation sufficient to revoke | Siedl: (no preserved arguable issue; counsel found no meritorious challenge) | Court: Evidence supported revocation; no arguable appellate ground exists (appeal without merit) |
| Adequacy of counsel's Anders compliance and motion to withdraw | State/counsel: counsel complied with Anders/Schulman procedures and provided notices/materials to appellant | Siedl: did not file a response or request pro se access within extended time | Court: Counsel complied; motion to withdraw granted |
| Variation between oral pronouncement and written judgment (fine) | State: written judgment included $295 fine | Siedl: oral pronouncement did not mention any fine | Court: Oral pronouncement controls; modified judgment to delete the fine |
| Notice of right to file petition for discretionary review (PDR) | Court/counsel: appellant must be advised of PDR right | Siedl: N/A | Court: Advisory and counsel responsibility reiterated; appellant may file PDR |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures for counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Anders procedures applied in Texas appellate practice)
- Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (one violation is sufficient to support revocation)
- Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (oral pronouncement of sentence controls over conflicting written judgment)
- Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (distinction between regular and deferred-adjudication community supervision; reformation of judgments where oral pronouncement controls)