Mary Jane Hoover v. State
06-17-00006-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 15, 2017Background
- Hoover, previously convicted of DWI (third or more), had community supervision revoked after pleading "true" to three alleged criminal violations (evading arrest with a vehicle, resisting arrest, and subsequent DWI).
- The revocation hearing admitted the State’s plea packet without objection; Hoover requested a presentence investigation; trial court sentenced her to 4 years’ confinement (within the third-degree felony range of 2–10 years).
- Appellate counsel reviewed the record, concluded there were no arguable grounds, filed an Anders brief, and moved to withdraw; counsel notified Hoover of her right to file a pro se response and seek further review.
- Hoover did not file a pro se brief or request an extension within the provided period.
- The Court of Appeals conducted an independent review, found the appeal frivolous, and affirmed the revocation and sentence; counsel’s withdrawal was granted under Anders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether record shows reversible error in revocation proceedings | Hoover implicitly challenged pretrial writ denial (per counsel) | State maintained revocation was supported by Hoover’s open pleas and evidence; pretrial writ issues not cognizable on revocation appeal | No reversible error; revocation affirmed |
| Whether pretrial writ issues may be raised on revocation appeal | (Argued by counsel as potential basis) | Pretrial original-plea issues not reviewable on revocation appeal absent void judgment | Not cognizable in this appeal |
| Whether counsel adequately preserved/appellate process was proper | Counsel filed Anders brief, notified Hoover of rights, sought withdrawal | State accepted procedural posture and record | Court found counsel complied with Anders and process proper |
| Whether appellate counsel may withdraw under Anders | Counsel sought to withdraw after concluding appeal frivolous | State did not oppose withdrawal | Withdrawal granted; no substitute counsel appointed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requires counsel to file brief demonstrating lack of meritorious issues before withdrawal)
- Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605 (2005) (courts must independently review record for arguable issues where counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (original-plea challenges generally not reviewable on later revocation appeal)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (addresses procedural safeguards and time allowed for appellant to file pro se brief after Anders notice)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (confirms appellate-court independent review requirement when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (Anders-related standards for counsel and appellate procedure)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (procedural authority relating to counsel’s duties on frivolous appeals)