Stephen Paul Patel v. State
11-17-00212-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Stephen Paul Patel pleaded guilty in two separate causes to failure to register as a sex offender and to bail jumping/failure to appear; trial court assessed punishment and placed him on community supervision in each case.
- The State later filed motions to revoke Patel’s community supervision in both causes.
- After a contested revocation hearing, the trial court found three allegations true and revoked supervision, imposing the original ten-year confinement sentences in each cause and restoring a $3,000 fine in one cause.
- Court-appointed appellate counsel concluded the appeals were frivolous, filed Anders-style briefs and motions to withdraw, and provided Patel notice and access information; Patel did not file a pro se response or seek appellate record access.
- The appellate court independently reviewed the record under Anders/Schulman procedures and determined the appeals were without merit.
- The court granted counsel’s motions to withdraw, dismissed the appeals, and advised Patel of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reversible error exists in the revocation proceedings | Patel implicitly argued (through counsel’s review) that no reversible error appears in the record | State argued revocation was supported by findings and evidence presented at the hearing | Court found no reversible error and affirmed revocation (appeals dismissed) |
| Whether appellate counsel complied with Anders requirements | Counsel argued they complied with Anders/Schulman and that the appeals are frivolous | Appellee did not contest counsel’s compliance | Court held counsel complied with Anders/Schulman and granted motion to withdraw |
| Whether independent review of the record shows arguable grounds for appeal | Patel did not file a pro se response asserting arguable issues | State relied on record supporting revocation and argued no arguable issues | Court’s independent review found no arguable grounds; appeal deemed wholly frivolous |
| Whether appellant was properly notified of discretionary-review rights | Counsel provided notice and records access information; court gave additional advisement | State had no opposing position regarding notice | Court noted counsel’s and court’s duty to inform appellant of right to file a petition for discretionary review |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes procedure when counsel believes appeal is frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (outlines appellate court’s duties when reviewing Anders brief and pro se response)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (addresses counsel’s obligations in Anders-type appeals)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (discusses remand when arguable grounds for appeal exist)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (procedural precedent related to appointed counsel’s withdrawal)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.) (procedural authority on appellate counsel duties)
- Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App.) (procedural authority cited for counsel withdrawal practice)
- Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.) (procedural authority on appeals and counsel duties)
- Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005) (local precedent on Anders practice)