Tara Ciapponi v. State
11-16-00188-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 3, 2016Background
- Tara Ciapponi pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine and to robbery; in each case the trial court accepted plea agreements, convicted her, assessed punishment, and placed her on community supervision.
- The State filed motions to revoke community supervision in both cases; after a contested revocation hearing the trial court found the allegations true and revoked supervision.
- The trial court imposed the original sentences: two years in state jail and $1,000 fine for possession; ten years in TDCJ and $1,000 fine for robbery.
- Court‑appointed appellate counsel concluded the appeals were frivolous, filed motions to withdraw supported by Anders-style briefs, and provided Ciapponi with records, briefs, and notice of her right to file a pro se response.
- The court granted Ciapponi 30 days to file a pro se response; none was filed. The appellate court independently reviewed the records under Anders/Schulman and found no reversible error.
- The court granted counsel’s motions to withdraw and dismissed both appeals; the opinion notes Ciapponi’s right to seek discretionary review.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel properly moved to withdraw under Anders | Counsel’s brief conceded no nonfrivolous issues; Ciapponi did not file contrary argument | State maintained counsel complied with Anders procedures | Court found counsel complied and granted the motions to withdraw |
| Whether record shows reversible error in revocation or sentencing | Ciapponi raised no pro se issues after notice; no arguable grounds asserted | State argued record contains no reversible error | Court independently reviewed record and found no reversible error; appeal frivolous |
| Whether appellate procedures (notice, records) were adequate | Appellate counsel provided records and notice; Ciapponi had opportunity to respond | State asserted procedural compliance with Anders/Schulman and Texas rules | Court confirmed compliance with Anders/Schulman and Rule 48.4 and advised Ciapponi re: PDR |
| Whether appeals should be dismissed | No appellate issues shown in briefs or record | State asked for dismissal after review | Court dismissed the appeals and allowed withdrawal of counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requirement for counsel to file brief indicating lack of meritorious issues and court to independently review record)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (standards for Anders-type briefing in Texas)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (procedures for appellate review of Anders briefs and pro se responses)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (Anders/Schulman appellate procedures reaffirmed)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (authority on counsel withdrawal and appellate procedure)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (precedent on counsel withdrawal)
- Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (authority cited regarding appellate procedure)
- Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) (authority cited regarding appellate counsel responsibilities)
- Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005) (example of Anders practice in Texas)