Latosha Lanette McGee v. State
12-15-00129-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 23, 2015Background
- Appellant Latosha McGee pleaded guilty in two cases and received five-year deferred adjudication community supervision.
- In April, the State moved to proceed to final adjudication and revoke the community supervision.
- A hearing was held; the trial court adjudicated guilt and imposed confinement on April 24, 2015.
- McGee timely appealed the revocation/sentence; the record includes plea, stipulation, and testing evidence.
- The offenses involved possession of a controlled substance (state jail felony) and assault on a public servant (third-degree felony).
- The appellate brief was prepared under Anders, seeking withdrawal if no reversible error exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there legally sufficient evidence to revoke? | McGee contends insufficient evidence supports revocation. | State asserts a plea of true establishes revocation and credibility of alleged violations. | Yes; a true plea or preponderance supports revocation; evidence supported the ruling. |
| Were the sentences within statutory range and not constitutionally cruel? | McGee argues potential excessive punishment. | Sentence within statute; any excess would require a separate appeal; waiver applies. | Within statutory ranges; not constitutionally cruel given waivers and record. |
| Did McGee receive effective assistance of counsel? | McGee claims ineffective assistance may have affected the revocation process. | Counsel's performance met objective standards; no reasonable probability of different outcome. | No ineffective-assistance showing; record supports adequacy of representation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review for revocation of probation)
- Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (standard governing revocation of probation)
- Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996) (plea of true can support revocation on its own)
- Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (preponderance standard for revocation evidence)
- Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (revocation evidence sufficiency)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (ineffective-assistance standard)