Case Information
*0 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 4/22/2015 3:42:39 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 06-14-00240-cr SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 4/22/2015 3:42:39 PM DEBBIE AUTREY CLERK No. O6-L4-00240-CEt
IN The Sixth Court of Agrpeal.s Texarkana, llexas
DENISE GAIL DOOLEY, AppeTTarzt, v.
THE STATE OF TE:nS,, A5>pe77ee.
Appeals from the L24E}r Distr:ict Court Gregg CountY, Texasl Trial Court No. 42 ,348-8 ATIDERS BRIEF
ATTC)RD{EY FOR APPELLAIiIT: ,feff T. ilackson SBOT No 2406997 6i [3] 6.A Hvry 259 N KiJ-gore, TX 5662:' Phonre: 903- 654'33i62 Fax: 817-887-43133 oRAt ARGTIyIENT NOT REgUIESTED *2 LrsT oF PARTTES Alrp cou$rqqL DENISE GAIL DOOLEY API?ELLANT:
TDCJ No. Pending
Crarta -nrrnfrT Jail vv9rr u \ 101 E. Methvin, Ste. 559
T,r^rnr-rrri or^r TX 75601 lvirY v ruyv Lt I rf nri ai n r I nl a: hrz.
Rar^lrcrqanl- orl r\sIJrErDsr.r L-sLr cr L \Jr _Lv _LrJ.cl_L IJrsq- p J .
Ed**ri Ch"y
SBOT No. 24062665
606 El " Methvin St.
T,nnr-rrri or^r 'l'X 75601 lvrrY v rvvv Lz f Phone: 903-2L2-4818
Repre:sented at sentencing by:
Ri."h€ffi
SBOT No. 10308600
222 N. Fredonia St.
r ^^ ---.: ^-, -x 15606 Jr\Jrr9V_LCWt rr Phoner. 903-234-8181
Reprersented on appeaf by:
Jeff T. Jackson
SBOT No. 2406991 [6]
136-A Hwy N.
Kilgcrre, TX 15662
Phone: 903-65 4-3362
Fax: BIl - BB7-4333 State of Texas
APIIET,LEE: a-'i ^-'i ^ - I nl ar
Par, raqanl- r\EIJTC:DEr-rLCLr arl l.rrz. =f CLL \Jr-Lgl.rrCr_L y_LUd. JJy "-raetrt ""tt"
(]rarrrv Cntrnfrz l-)'i ql-ri r..l- A1-1-nr?1a\Z v!vYY vvurruJ uLOv!rvu nuuv!IIgy SBOT No. 24059180 E:. Methvin, Ste. 333
T,nncrrri oinr - fX lvrrY v revv Lz f
Phone: 903-236-8440
Bgpfesented at oriqi"?l
Christopher Parker
Gregg County District Attorney
SBOT No. 24046585 B. Methvi-n, Ste. 333
Longview, TX 75601
Phone: 903-236-8440
Represented on appeal by:
Van Colson Brown
Gregg County District Attorney
SBOT No. 03205900 E. Methvin, Ste. 333
Longview, TX
Phone: 903-236-8440
TAT}LE Ol' CONTENTS
List of Parties and Counsel.. .....i
Table of Contents... ....iii
Index of Authorities .....iv
Statement of the Case ....vi
fssues Presented ...v"iii
Statement of Facts... .....1
Summary of t.he Arguments.. ....3
Arrrrrman.l- A ...v
I. APPELLANT'S PLEA OF GUILTY COM:PLIED WITH TI-{E REQUTREMENTS OF ARTTCLE 26.73 OF THE TEXA,S CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.. ...6 II NO OBJECTION TO THE EVIDENCE WAS MADE DURING THE PUNTSHMENT STAGE OF ]]RIAL AND NO MERITORIOUS LEGAL CLAIM EXISTS RELATED TO THE IMPOSIT]ON OF PUNISHMENT . . .8 I]I. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL IS NOT A VIABLE CLAIM BASED ON THE] RECORD BEFORE THIS COURT .....10 Statement of Attornev to the Court . . .13
Conclusion and Praver ....I4
Certificat-e of Compl-iance ....15
Cert.ificat-e of Service.. .... -16
rNDEX OE' AUTHORITTES Ca:se Law:
An<lers v. Caf if ornia,
386 rJ.s. '/38, '744, (1967) A 1A Rrlr'ltt \r flnifarl .(f-afac uLc/sJ v . vf tl Lvv u e a L=.) 391 U.S. '/42, 149, (1970) . f
[1] Crawford v. State,
890 S)"W.2d 542, 544 (Tex.Crim.App.1985)" j Cu::rie v. State,
516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.I9j4) . 14 Fu<>ntes v State, j
688 Si .W.2d 542, 544 (Tex.Crim.App 1985). Hernandez v. State,
126 S.W.2d 53, 51 (Tex.Crim.App.19BG) . 11 Jac:k v. State,
B7I Si.W.2d 14I (Tex.Cr.App.I9j4) [5] Jac:kson v. State,
811 S.W.2d'/68, 11I (Tex.Crim.App.1994) .11 Jeffery v. State,
903 S.W. 116 (Tex.App.-Dal_las 1995r rro pet.). 5, L4 Stz"ickl-and v. Washington,
466 u.s. 668 (1984). 11, 12 Thc,mpson v. State,
9 S.W.3d B0B, BI2 (Tex.Cri_m.App.1999) . ,, 12 United States v. Johnson, F .2d I32B , L329 ( 5rh Cir . I9j 6) .
IV
Startutes :
Tex.. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 26.L3 . 5, 6,
STATEMENT OF THE CASF] f or attemptrngJ to Appe-Llant waived indictment possess or obtain a control-l-ed subst.ance by fraud I a
th.Lrd deqyree felony, and elected to enter a guilty plea
to the court on April 18 , 201,3. RR2 p . 5; CR p . 26 .
Aplrell-ant. waived presentment of the case to a grand jury
an<l pletrded "gui ILy" to the of f ense alleged by
j-n:formati.on presented by the office of the Gregg County
District Attorney. CR p. 6, 26; RR2 p. 5. The Lrial f or f our years and
court de.ferred a inding of guilt
placed Appell-ant on deferred adjudication probation with
ce:rtain condit.ions . RR2 p. L2; CR p. .
On December 3L, 2013, the Trial Cou.rt heard an aqreed modificat.ion of probation. RR 4, p. 4. At that time,,
trial- court modj-fied the Conditlons of Probal:ion,
re<luiring that Appel-l-ant attend and complete the lf exas
Detrartmerrt of Crimj-nal Just.ice (TDCJ) Substance Abuse
Fe Lony Purnishment Facility (SAFP ) RR4 , p 4; CR p .
V1 *8 On December LI, 2074, the Tri-al Court heard the Stiete' s Application for Adjudication of Guilt 1n this
caltse. RR5, p. 5; CR pp. 59-60, 65. Appel-l-ant pleaded
"t:rue" to the allegatj-ons contained in the ApplicaLion,
anrl the trial court found Appel-lant guilty of attempting
to possess or obtain a controll-ed substance by :raud.
RRli pp 5^6; CR 65. A punj-shment tri-al- was heard by the
tr.Lal court wherein evidence was presented by botLt
Appellant and the State RR5 pp . 6-28. Appel-l-ant- was
sent.encecl by the Trial- Court to seven (7 ) years
confinement in the fnstitutional Division of the ilexas
Department of Criminal- Justice. CR5 p. 29-30; CR 65.
vll
ISSUES PRESENTED
r. whether Appellant's plea of guilty complied with
recJuirement.s of Article .73 of the Texas code of
Cri-minal- Procedure?
r r wheth.er an ob j ect.ion was made to the evid.ence or
exhribits during the punishment staoe of 1- ri :l ?
rrr. whether ineffecti-ve assistance of trial- counsel is a
via.ble claim based upon the record before t.his court?
v111
TO THE HC)NORABLE S IXTH COURT OF APPEALS :
Comes now rlef f T. Jackson, attorney f or DENISE GAIL DOOLEY, Appel-l-ant in the above styled and numbered ".^^ resner:tfrr-l I rz srrbmi t.s this Anders Brief: and
\-O. l.,tDeDt Cl-IIL,t !soI/Eeu!uf,f,J ouvlllruJ I
wor:ld show the Court the f ol-lowinq:
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Appe-Llant was charged by information with attemptj-ng to possess or obt.aj-n a controlled substance by frau<J. CR
p. 6. The State alleged that on January B, 2013,
n1.,lgcr-Lo-rrL. crL-L.srrrlrL-sLr u\r pOSSeSS a COnt-rOlled SUbStanCe, n^,^^-l'l f ^ -^.t- -+-F^1-^]-^-i
narnel rz- Hrzdrnr-ndnne - f hrorrch uSe of a raudulent rrsrrrvf rrJV! VLLL | J,
te.Iephonl..cally communicated prescription. CR5 S-1, S-2.
Ed'ruard Ch.oy represented Appellant, and on April 18, ',20L3, \\rrrri 1l'.t" Arrrral I rnf onl- arad ,a nl a: r'rf f r-r l- ho r-h;arrrarl q
fal/lvvIrqIrL. 9rru9rvv v! uv errv vra(/!Yvv yfvs YurruJ
offense. RR2 p. 5; CR p. 12. Based on
NOTE: The record is referred to as: t'CF{": clerk's record in Cause No.43406-A.
"RI{": reporter's record in Cause No.43406-A.
a pf ea ag.reement between Appellant and the state, the
trial court deferred a finding of guilt, placing
App,ell-ant on deferred adjudication probation for four
years with various conditions of probation. RR2 p. 12;
CR pp. 10, 18, 22.
On December 3I, 2013, Richard Hurl_burt represented the Appellant on an agreed modificati"on of probation.
RR4, p. [4] Based on an agreement between Appell_ant and
the state, the trial court modif ied t.he conditions of
probation by adding the condition f ha1- Arr^o'l'lant attend
and complete SAFP. RR4, p 4; CR
On December II, 2014, t.he Trial- Court heard the state's Application for Adjudication of Guilt of the
Appel-lant for the offense of att.empting to possesri or
obtain a cont.rolled substance by raud. RR5, p. 5; CR
p. . Richard Hurlburt represented the Appel_lant,, A
punishment trial was heard bv the Tri.al court wherein
evj-dence was presented by both the Appellant and the
state" RR5 pp. 6-28. Appellant was sentenced by the
Trial Court to seven Vears confinement. in
Institut.lonal Division of Texas DepartmenL of
Cr:Lminal Justice with credit or ti-me she had se::ved.
RRIi p. 29-30
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS Unde::: Anders v. Cal_ifornia, 386 U. S. 738, 744, (7967) , a court-appointed attorney may not raise an j-ssue
in an appeal if he makes a conscientious examinatlon of
the case and f inds the appeal is wholly f rivol_ous. To
contply with Anders, counsel must j-sof ate "poss;ibly
important issues" and "furnish the cour:t with referelnces
to the recc-.] :nrl 1an3l authoritj_es to aid it in its
appellat.e function . " tLnited Sta tes v. Johnson, 52't E .2d,
732:.8, L329 (5th cir. r91 6) . After the ilppeltant is given
an opportunity to respond, the court makes a ull_
exaLmination of the record to detect whether the case is
frivolous. Anders, u. s. at 44. Appellant \s counsel-
has reviewed the clerk's Record and .Re'oort.er 's Record
frc'm the llrial court, the sentence received by Appellant
and. the factual basis for the sentence. As set forth in
the Brief , there are no non-frivol_ous j_ssues.
The record reveals that the trial court substant.iallv comLplied with Article 26.13 of the Te><as code of Criminal_
Procedure whon ar-r-an]- i r1g' Appel_lant' s plea. CR2 pp. 5-
10. No obj ection was m:do l"rrz Annellant to any of the
evidence, exhi-bits, def erment of a f inding of gui1.t or
placement of Appell-ant on def erred adj udication
probation. RR2 pp. 11-14. There are no jurisdictional_
defects. There are no 11nn-iirni qrli nlional defects arislng
at or after entry of the plea. ,See Jack v. State, BlI
S . W. 2d [1] 41 (Tex . Cr. App . 1"91 4) Counsel- has al-so iled
with this Court a Motj-on to Withdraw as Court Appoi.nted
Counsel orl Appeal with supporting exhibits j-n accordance
wif h |he nrocedures and standardS Set out. in ,Tefferv \/- vu!vv srrv uusrrsu!vu uvu vuu JrI vvr!v!-y v.
State, S.W. (Tex.App.-Dal-l-as 1995, no pet.)
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES I. PLEA OF GUILTY COMPI,IED WITH THEI
APPE],LANT ' S OF ARTICLE 26.13 OF THE TEXAS CODE REQU:I-REMENTS OF CI.{IMINAL PROCEDURE .
Appe-l-l-ant's counsel has reviewed thLe record in detail ancl has identified no action or i-naction on the t-rial
court's part t.hat suggests harmfu,I error in
Defendant's pleading guilty to the charges.
Befo:::e accepting a guilty plea, the trial court must adnnonish a def endant of : (1) the punishment range , (2)
the fact that the State's sentencinq recommendation is
not- binding on the court, (3) the limited right to appeal
anrl (4\ fhe ncrssihilifrz of dcnortal.ion. Tex. Code Crim.
urf\a \ r/ urrv yvuurv!rruJ
Proc. art. 26.13(a). The admonishments may be made
eit-her orally or in writing. Id at 26.I3 (d)
At Appellant's original pleas, the court admonj-shed nra I--Jper range for the charge of Annal l:nf .)n f ha
attempting to possess or obta j-n a controlled substance
by fraud . RR2 pp . 5-6; CR pp . j -B . The court
subst.antially complied with the requ j-rement.s of t.he t c rrrrf lty plea aS eVidelnCed
SteitUte i.n 3r'r.arr1. inr.r anrro'l I =n1-
by the written plea admoni-shments and verbal judge. RR2 pp. 5-10, CR pp.
adnonj-shments by the trial
7-8.
To bel constitutionally valid, a guilty plea must be kncrwing and voluntary. See Brady v. United Sta tes , 391
U.S. '742, 149, (1970); see al-so Tex" Code Crim. Proc.
Ann. art. 26.13 (b) . When the record shows that the t.rial
court. admonished the defendant in subst-antial- compli.ance
wit.h Art j..cl-e 26 .13 of the Code of Criminal Proceclure,
thj-s is a prj-ma facie showing that the plea was knowing ,See Tex . Code Crim. Proc Ann . art .
ancl volu.ntarv.
26.L3 (C); See Crawford v. State, 890 S.w.2d 542,
(Tex " Cr j-rn. App . ) There is nothing in the record to
'i nrli n=J-a arrnal l:nl- nl e,aded crrri I f rz ;rnd trtte Wit.hOUt L:trv e!u IIILIIL-A(-g n.L1_y9fJqrlU I/Jsquev YufruJ
uncierstanding the consequences of he:: plea, and as a
-^.-,. r | 7\nngll_ant SUf ered nO harm. See FUenteS V IEDUTt-7 l1v-y
St,zte, 6BB S.W.2d 542, 544 (Tex.Crim-App 1985). The
trj-al court accepted Appellant's ori-qi-nal plea of guilty
anci a finding of guilt was deferred" RR2 pp. 10-14. The
vol-unt.ariness of Appellant's pleas is shown by
record.. RR2 p. 5-10; CR p. B. The trial- court asked
Appell-ant's trial- attorney certain questions relating to
Appellant' s competetcY, and. the trial- court f:ound
Appell-ant to be competent. RR 2 p. 10. Appell-ant also
steited j-1 her writt.en plea admonishment.s that she was
competent . CR p. B
II. NO OBJECTION TO EV]DENCE OR EXHIBITS WAS MADT] DURTNG THE PUN]SHMENT STAGE OF TRIAL AND NC) MERITORIOUS LEGAL CLAIM EXISTS RELATED TO THE] IMPOS]ITION OF PUNISHMENT.
On the l8th day of April, 2013, Appel-l-ant's plea of gu-Llty w.is accepted by the trial- court. CR2 pp. 10.
Ap1:ell-ant. was placed on deferred adjud.ication probal-i-on,
ancl the trial- court adj udicated Appel-lant guilty on
December LL, 2014. RR 5 p. 30; CR p. 65" The punisirment
phirse of Appell-ant' s trial began on December II , 20L4
RR5 p. ,. No evidence was presented by the state other
than the Stipulation of Evidence and the Guilty lllea.
RRli p. Appel-l-ant made no ob j ect j-on to evj-dence or
exlribits of fered by the state, RR5 pp. 6-28, and the
trial judge sentenced Appellant. to seven (7) years in
Instituti..onal- Division of t.he Texeis Department- of RR5 p. 30; CR p" 65.
Cr.iminal- Justice (TDCJ) *19 The t.rial- court was the fact finder for purposes of the: punishment decision. The evidence before the court
was Subst-antial and the sentence was adequate. The
juclge's remarks followi-ng the cl-ose of evidence indi.cate
the circumstances taken in consi-deration rel-ated to
sentence assessed in open court - RR5 pp. 30-31.
III. INEFF'ECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL ]S NOT A VIABLE CLA]M BASED UPON THE RECORD BEFORE THIS COURT
Claims of i-nef f ective assistance of counsel are an.il vzed, under the two-prong test set out by the United
States Supreme Court in Strickfand v. Vfashington, 466
U. Si. 658 (1984) , and adopted by Texas in Hernandez v.
state,726 S"W.2d 53, 51 (Tex.Crim.App"1986) . Appel-l-ant
muriL show that trial counsel-'s performance waS defic:-ent,
+r-\-\f i e ^^rrr.rsel r.s renresent.ation fell below an objective o !s}/!\
LIt<lL- fDl L-\-/LtrIlJsl
standard of reasonableness Thompson v. State, 9 S,'W. 3d
B0{1, BI2 (Tex.Crim.APP.1999)
Appe"Ll-ant must also show that counsel-'s deficient StrickTand, U.S. na'rfrrrm^rlr-e nrcrrrrli r-erl his defense. !Vrrllqrlve I/g-L -y- "J
at 687; Jackson v. State, B1'/ S-W.2d '768, 11I
/'n,rv r'-ri nr arrrr qq4 \ \ l-t-21 . \/I-LIL[.l-1l-,,.y. -LJJa I . ShOW ant I thef e Thi e rocrri res An'nel rftrt !vYuf !vu that, but or counisel I s
is a reasonable probability
r'rn'nrr.rf essl i ona I arrors - the reSuIt Of th.e prOCeeding wOuld v! !v! v
Lf,fI-y!VIgt\JJvlIsI t
har.e been dif f erent . Strickf and, 466 U . S . at 694;
Jac:kson, 811 S.W.2d at 117. A reasonabl-e probability is
e r.rrokrakrj I i f ., otttt i ni a1l tO Undermine COnf idenCe in the .>L,tIII\--LErl a uy I./r\Jr-lc"JJrfr
out,come. StrickJand, U.S. at 694; Jackson, S.W.2d
dL ^..f- [1] '1'1 I tL.
In r<=viewinq an ineffective assistance Of counsel- cleiim, there is a strong presumption that couns;e.l- 's the wide range of reasorlable
conduct f al-1s within
professional- assiStance and the appel-1ant must overcome
the presLrmption that the chal-lenged conduct might be
considered sound trial strategy. Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at.
B1.1; StrickTand, 466 U.S. at 5B9. Any allegation of
ineffect.j.veness must be firmly founded and affirmat--Lve1y
d.ernonstra.ted in the record to overcome this presumpl-ion.
Thnmnson.. I S.W.3d at 813; see Jackson, B-/'l S -W- 2d at
Lll\JI.LIJ9vll,.
17'.L . It is the Appellant 's burden to prove inef f ect j-ve
asrsisLance of counsel by a preponderance of the evidence -
rd.
At the guilt phase of her t.rial wherein she en'[ered - ^'r n= nr \\.rrri I rz " AnDelIant waS informed by the trial ,'.Y.F \J.L d Prt:a | YLILLvI
court of her right to plead "not guiJ-ty" and have the
case tried before a jury. RR2 p. 6. At no point during
rnr' nf fhr: rrrr'r-oadinrrq i-p1 this CaUSe di<l Appel-lant aSSeft. u r arr] \J r uf r\:l I/! vvsEurrrY that she was unhappy with
to the 1-rial- court
nor,'formence encl rcnre.sent.ation of her trial counselr Mr- urrv ! vI/r !v!ILLqrrvv
vg!.
Choy" Appellant also swore Lo the statement contained
in the written plea admonishments that Appellant was
sat.isfied wit.h trial counsel/ s represent.ation. CR p. B. freely and voluntarily eLfter
AppeIlant pleaded guilty
bei-ng properly admonished of the pun j-shment range, RR2
p. 5-10; CR p. 1. Based on this record, ho legitj-mate
non-frivolous basis exists to argue trial counsel waS ineffecLive at the or-lginal guilty plea
consLitutionally
.\r rrrrn'i ehmon1- nhase of AnnelIantt.s trial U } TIgJU V! L-,'I l'JLTlIT\)I.LILLSII
STATEMENT OE. ATTORNEY TO TH!: COURT This brlef 1s filed by counsel appointed by the court rFnreJ,icn+ 7\^6^'r 'r ^^ {- ^n =nnaa l_ in aCCofdance With f n u\J rsyrsi)srru f1'lrl-/E-L-LCT.IIL \J1r o'yIJVo.-r
Anclers v. Cal-if ornia, 3B U. S . 738 (7961) , and Currie v.
State, 5L6 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App"I9l 4). Counsel- has
al-so fil-ed with this Court a Motion to Withdraw as Court r+'i n^ 7\nnn.i nFnA r'an"naa'l \-\J(lrrDg-L wi f h in
f1'PI/'\J-LrrLUL,l \J1r fl.I-iysO.r w-L Lrr JL]yy\-/! L-JrlV E. ^XhibitS ^'tl.eAl
accordance with the procedures as standards set out in
Jef-fery v. State,903 S.W.2d 716 (Tex.App.-Dallas L995,
no pet. ) . After thorough examination of the clerk's
record and reporter' s record, counsel can find no point
of error that can be supported by the record. Counsel-
has discr"rssed the evidence and the documents in rcr-ord - r-i I i nr-r rof arAnr-eS to the eCOf ClS
rvvv!v, v.! 9!rrY
l4
PR,;AYER Wherefore/ premlses considered, the undersi_gned counsel requests the Court of Appeals review the record
on appea-L, consider the Motion to Withdraw as Court
Appointed Counsel- with supporting affidavit, review
for:egoing Brief in Support of Mot.ion to Wi-thdraw, and
greLnt Lhe Motion to Withdraw. rz qrrl.rmi 1- 'l-ad
Raqrracf frr'l'l U UVV' SBOT No. 2406997 [6] 736-A Hwy N.
Kilgore, TX 15662 Phone: 903-65 4-3362 Fax: 817-B B7-4333 Email:
j e f t j acksonl.awGgmail . com AnnaT l tnf Af f orna\l fn- !!UUvLr!vJ LvL ,11f^)IJV-L-LO.rtC f DENISE GAIL DOOLEY *25 CERTIFICATE OF COMPIIANCE The foregoj-ng Appellant's Brief is j-n compl-iance with TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i) (2) (B) The total- number of words
contalned in Appellant.'s Brj-ef that are not specifically
excl-uded rom t.he word counL under TEX. R. APP . P. .4
(f) (1) is I,130 words.
SBOT No. 2406991 Attorney for AppeJJant, DENISE GAIL DOOLEY r6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICH It the undersigned attorney, do hereby certify that a t.rue and correct Copy of the above Motion was served
on the State of Texas by maillng same to the District
Attorney of Gregg County on April 22, 20L5 that I have mailed a copy of
I further certify above Brief and accompanying motion by First Cl-ass Mail,
postage paid, to Appel-l-ant, DENISE GAIL DOOLEY, TDCJ No.
fPending], at the address listed above on the same d.ate. Jackson
rlHlll t7