Roxann Faye Berkley v. State
11-16-00313-CR
| Tex. App. | Feb 16, 2017Background
- Roxann Faye Berkley pleaded guilty to three counts of forgery of a financial instrument involving an elderly victim; the trial court deferred adjudication and placed her on six-year community supervision in each cause.
- The State filed motions to adjudicate guilt. Berkley pleaded true to five of six alleged violations across the three motions.
- After accepting her pleas of true and hearing testimony, the trial court revoked community supervision, adjudicated her guilty, and sentenced her to eight years’ confinement on each count, to run concurrently; a $2,500 fine was imposed in one cause.
- Court-appointed appellate counsel filed Anders/Schulman motions to withdraw in each consolidated appeal, stating there were no non-frivolous issues. Counsel provided required notices and materials to Berkley; she did not file a response or seek pro se access.
- The court independently reviewed the records under Anders/Schulman and concluded the appeals lacked merit, granted counsel’s motions to withdraw, and dismissed the appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation and adjudication were supported by the record | Berkley implicitly argued post-plea matters (no contest to factual sufficiency raised) | State argued pleas of true and testimony supported revocation | Court held pleas of true and testimony suffice; revocation supported |
| Whether appellate counsel properly moved to withdraw under Anders/Schulman | Berkley (through counsel) had no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal | State did not contest counsel’s compliance with Anders/Schulman | Court held counsel complied with required procedures and granted withdrawal |
| Whether issues from the original plea can be raised on revocation appeal | Berkley sought no such relief on appeal; generally would attempt to attack original plea | State argued original plea issues are not cognizable on revocation appeal | Court held original-plea challenges are not permitted on revocation appeals |
| Whether one violation is sufficient to revoke community supervision | Berkley’s admissions to some violations could be argued as insufficient overall | State asserted proof of a single violation suffices for revocation | Court held a single proven violation or a plea of true is sufficient to support revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (procedures for Anders-type brief and court’s independent review)
- Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (proof of one violation is sufficient to support revocation)
- Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (a plea of true alone can support revocation)
- Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (issues from original plea proceeding are not reviewable on revocation appeal)