Roberta Winnie Bagwell v. State
12-14-00248-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 31, 2015Background
- Roberta Winnie Bagwell was indicted in Smith County for theft by passing bad checks, alleging aggregate value between $1,500 and $20,000.
- Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court placed Bagwell on five years deferred-adjudication community supervision.
- The State filed an amended application to proceed to final adjudication alleging eight supervision violations.
- Bagwell pleaded "true" to five allegations; at a hearing the trial court found seven allegations true, adjudicated her guilty, and sentenced her to two years' confinement.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders/Gainous brief stating no arguable appeal issues and moved to withdraw; the court conducted an independent review and found no reversible error.
- The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw and affirmed the trial-court judgment; it instructed counsel to notify Bagwell of her right to petition for discretionary review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate record shows reversible error in adjudication and sentencing | Bagwell (through counsel) implicitly argues no meritorious error exists (Anders brief asserts no arguable issues) | State argues trial court's adjudication and sentence are proper based on truth findings | Court found no reversible error and affirmed |
| Validity of truth findings supporting adjudication | State contends the alleged violations were proven or admitted, justifying adjudication | Bagwell offered no successful challenge to the truth determinations on appeal | Court accepted truth findings (seven of eight) and adjudicated guilt |
| Whether counsel complied with Anders/Gainous and may withdraw | Counsel argues he complied with Anders/Gainous and no non-frivolous issues exist | State does not oppose withdrawal if court independently reviews record | Court found counsel complied, concluded appeal frivolous, and granted leave to withdraw |
| Notice and procedures for further review (PDR) | Bagwell entitled to notice and time to file petition for discretionary review | State has no contrary position; procedural requirements govern any PDR | Court ordered counsel to notify Bagwell of PDR rights and set filing deadlines |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (criminal appellate counsel may withdraw only after reviewing record and filing brief describing any perceived nonfrivolous issues)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (appellate-counsel withdrawal procedures and court review standards)
- Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) (state-law guidance on Anders-type procedures)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (procedural expectations for counsel’s Anders compliance)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standard for appellate court’s independent review after Anders brief)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (procedures for counsel’s motion to withdraw and client notification in Anders contexts)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (court recognition of Anders withdrawal practice)