Mangram, Timothy Earl, PD-1038-15

Appellant Timothy Earl Mangram pleaded guilty (Feb 12, 2014) to theft of property ≥ $1,500 but < $20,000. The trial court deferred final adjudication and placed him on five years' community supervision pursuant to a plea agreement.
The State filed a motion to adjudicate on April 14, 2014; at the adjudication hearing Mangram pleaded true to one allegation, but the trial court found all six allegations in the motion true (Nov. 7, 2014).
After a separate punishment hearing the trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced Mangram to 20 months in a State Jail Facility.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw, concluding the appeal was frivolous after reviewing the record and explaining why no reversible error existed.
The Seventh Court of Appeals conducted an independent review, found no arguable grounds for appeal (including addressing Mangram’s pro se response alleging curfew-count overcharging), granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Whether counsel properly moved to withdraw under Anders	Anders brief argued no non-frivolous grounds exist; counsel complied with required procedures	State supported affirmance; court must independently review record	Court accepted Anders brief, conducted independent review, found appeal frivolous and granted withdrawal
2) Sufficiency of proof to adjudicate based on alleged probation violations	Mangram argued the State alleged more curfew violations than occurred (challenges factual sufficiency of violations)	State argued proof of a single violation is sufficient; other violations also supported adjudication	Court held proof of a single proven violation is sufficient and Mangram raised no arguable ground; adjudication affirmed

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (framework for appellate counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (appellate-court independent review required when counsel seeks to withdraw)
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (procedural compliance when counsel concludes appeal is frivolous)
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standards for Anders/Penson review in Texas)
Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (proof of any single probation condition violation supports adjudication)
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appellant’s right to record for pro se response after Anders filing)
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (advising appellant of right to file pro se response after Anders brief)