Terry A. Gatlin v. State
10-16-00228-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 7, 2016Background
- Terry A. Gatlin pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to driving while intoxicated, third or more; trial court assessed 10 years' imprisonment but suspended sentence and placed him on 10 years' community supervision.
- The State filed a motion to revoke community supervision alleging violations of supervision conditions; Gatlin pleaded "true" to the allegations.
- The trial court revoked Gatlin’s community supervision and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment; Gatlin appealed.
- Court‑appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw, concluding there were no arguable grounds for appeal and complying with Texas procedural requirements for Anders briefs and notice to appellant.
- Gatlin filed a pro se response but raised no arguable grounds; the appellate court reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief and found the appeal wholly frivolous.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and ordered counsel to notify Gatlin of the right to seek discretionary review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation and sentence were improper after Gatlin pleaded true to alleged supervisee violations | State: revocation proper because Gatlin admitted violations; sentence within agreed punishment | Gatlin: (through pro se response) raised no arguable grounds challenging revocation | Court: affirmed revocation and 10‑year sentence; no reversible error |
| Whether appointed counsel permissibly withdrew under Anders after concluding appeal is frivolous | State/Counsel: Anders procedure satisfied; counsel reviewed record, served brief, notified Gatlin of rights | Gatlin: pro se response raised no meritorious issues and did not show counsel’s brief was inadequate | Court: found Anders brief adequate, conducted independent review, concluded appeal frivolous, and granted counsel's motion to withdraw |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes procedure when appointed counsel believes appeal is frivolous)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (appellate court must independently review record on Anders brief)
- Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Texas guidance on Anders briefing and appellate procedure)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (noting appellate court's duty to review record when counsel files Anders brief)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (procedural context for appointed counsel withdrawing)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (requirement that counsel explain why no reversible error exists)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (discussion of providing records to indigent appellant)
- Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (procedures for informing appellant about discretionary review)