Nicole Dawn Holland v. State
03-14-00577-CR
| Tex. App. | May 20, 2015Background
- Nicole Dawn Holland pled guilty (June 21, 2013) to state-jail felony DWI with a passenger under 15 and received a negotiated sentence of 2 years in state jail and a $1,000 fine, both probated for 3 years.
- Probation terms included reporting to probation officer, completing 225 hours of community service, and completing a DWI education class within six months.
- The State filed a motion to revoke probation (July 11, 2014) alleging failures to report, delinquent fees/costs, failure to complete community service and DWI class, and a new offense: driving while license suspended.
- At the September 3, 2014 revocation hearing Holland pleaded true only to failing to complete the DWI education class; she pleaded not true to other allegations but admitted driving with a suspended license, claiming a medical emergency.
- The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Holland had violated multiple probation conditions (failure to report, new offense, failure to complete community service, failure to complete DWI class), expressly did not base revocation on unpaid fees, revoked probation, and imposed the original agreed 2-year state-jail sentence and $1,000 fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for revocation | State: testimony and probation officer records show failures to report, no community service, new offense, and failure to complete DWI class. | Holland: maintained phone/fax/email contact, medical issues, confusion about DWI class; contested most allegations. | Court: Evidence supported revocation by preponderance; probation revoked. |
| Reliance on unpaid fees to revoke | State: alleged delinquencies included but trial court did not base revocation on fees. | Holland: revocation based on inability to pay fees would be improper. | Court: Trial court specifically excluded fees from its decision; revocation rested on other violations. |
| Sentence severity / Eighth Amendment | Holland: potential argument that sentence is cruel and unusual. | State: sentence is within statutory range and identical to plea agreement. | Court: Punishment falls within legislative range; Eighth Amendment challenge unavailing. |
| Anders withdrawal procedure | Counsel: no non-frivolous issues; filed Anders brief and motion to withdraw; informed appellant of rights. | N/A (procedural) | Counsel complied with Anders requirements; court-appointed counsel seeks leave to withdraw. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal for lack of nonfrivolous issues)
- Benson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (procedural context for counsel and appellate review where appeal may be frivolous)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (Texas precedent regarding counsel withdrawing when no arguable issues exist on appeal)
- Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standards regarding revocation procedures and probationer rights)