Hawkins, John Lamar, PD-0690-15

Hawkins, John Lamar

PD-0690-15

| Tex. App. | Aug 27, 2015

Check Treatment

Case Information

I oency Op Dares Aus Counsel

$& a m p; Ter 1or. R. Rpp. Prac. 35 (1) 1 roflowinc Is a Complete last \ & a m p; Oe Ait Pharcs lo Ine Iren Count's Joomencr, Aus d last 8 Mmus Aus \ & a m p; Aoores of Ait Iren Aus Appointe Counsel:$

Conusel: Appelant

Index $D$ Authoritios

Structures & Rules
C C P. $lar 15.05 (2)$

Aases

Hancock Vs. Waxree 823 S.W. 2 d 422 Kewo Vs. Srere 29. S.w. 2 d 356565 (Tos. Ceane. Aq.) 15 Maccocun Vs. Srere 629 S.W.2d. 790 (Tos. Ceane Aq. 1992) 14 Rood Vs. Srere 59 S.W. 2 d. 228 (Tos. Aq. For Whare 2001) 15 Keares Vs. Srere 5275. W. 2 d. 699705 (Tos. Aq. 1929) 15 Sorrelk. Deskous 9115. W. 2 d. 505 (Tos Aqo For Whare 1929) 12

*6 Qraterent Of The Case.

Marvice of The Case.

On November 6, 2013. Teteftem Was Cunaged By Enocement Wor Tho Seaund Dronge Focouy Pepense. Or Possessors B A Contracted. Suosrance Mlomangile Tamene In An Amount Over Dne Genm Bur Less Thoon Four Genms Wern Intront To Deleven. Acebed To Have Boon Connected Do A Aonur May 13, 2013, In Veactation By Section 451.112 Henctit And Safety Cook(Contealced Suosrance) Act Qs 5-6. The Inocement Tuatres Aueced In An Ennancement Ynancanof The Focouy Depense Or Unilawfully Caneyno A Wempow In A Leceased Focuse In Veactation Of Ters Pounc Case 46.201 The Enthancement Allocatton Wouto Incense To D runestment Fancce To A Feast Deoace Fobus Level.

*7 Aprement Approxed For A Count-Appointed Armonay (ce.9) The Count Founs That Foreternet Was Inocent, Source Pormer Reyences Appointment by Counser. And Do 6-6-2013, Appointed Arty, Buzen E. Hower To Repatent Foreternet In Tues (Case C28). D19-29-2014 Foreternet Feces A Re se Mercant For Suasetation Or Aprement Counsel. (C2 26-29) A Himerne Was Heed And The Mercant Was Doxed (2.RR 3-6). Foreternet Thes Counsel Feces No Suasentive Reaent Morton For The Appointment Or An Inveatation (C2 96). And A Morton To Wormorant Acres The Ined Who Dose. (C2 67) On Ortose 28, 2014 Foreternet Second A Inocent Conseration (cey) "Pro Guectry" To The Defenset (3eR6.120) And Feces "The Ennancement Assoation (3eR6.123) Foreternet Reaent has Recent To the the Iny Aceses Ennament (ce 31, 3 de 5) Jury Selection Deann Inmeactarely Froning Foreternet Pien D Guectry (De 3. 28) The Sars Presented Tues (3) Weaves (y ee 11-39) And Foreternet Reaent End (9) Weaves (4eR 43-72).

*8 The Fonomer Day the Day Assessed A Sourate Of Forsy(ed) James. In Resear the A time is $$ 1, 000.00$ is exact. 124-25) The Tack Court Excrees A Judgement And Sourate. In Accusomen West to Sury Guary, Vencourt And Fawcshum (Ca 59.60:522.23)

*9 Offerer Mark Geecek West The Texas Department Di. Pudice Sujory Love Stan Frosstow Took Free. Tuftemess The Say Turt Dr. Why 17, 208, He Was Given The To B. E. Lourten Ano Measorow The Pettrower. On Reale Hescation Wherent, Geecat And the follow Dececes Leamed that Pettrower Was Spotted. Dececes Appenished Pettrower To Make The Amest. As They Were Appenished Pettrower, Greek son Pettrower Hans A Nemport Crasotte Fackace To De D. His Co. Workers. Pettrower Was Reworted Weriant Incedent. But After The Amest. Greek Auked The Receptant Of The Crasototte Fackace. Bunow Butte, Le He Caved See The Fackace Orrle Avered And Handed The Nemport Fackace To Geece,

*10 Inscor 1 He Pichase Wace Four BAGGcos Cormcwnc A Custalicwe Substance, Ine Tested Postcove fhe Micromene Tmme Aerter The Desconary De The Motmmenetmme, Scecek Bim cwod Tetorawers Consent 10 Donent His Venecce, Inscor 1 He Venecte Wace Two(2) Mose Bagogces De Motmmenetmme, Lewsosay Hirtend, A Dps Forense Sccentest Confecond 1 but The Bagoeces Contaned Amat (3) Genus De Motmmenetmme ( $4 . c k .21 - 26$ ) ( $◻$ ture ex) Jain Allovet, Weri The Waco Taccus Tepnament, Rane Deuescon 1estefend 1int The Amount De Motmmenetmme Fano Couplod Wesi Dus Lobot found In Tetorawers Oae. We I nocestre 11018 Tetrower Wos Decree butine Motmmenetmme

*11 The State Evocd It's Presenatism Of Evcoence By Resonation State's Exhest (f.10) Which Woes Deumens Sllowes that Petetown Has Previously Deen Convezted Of Possession Of Morning Post Tammet(Exg) Vhuncusly Chayers A Weapon On A Lecenised Teames, A Moxdomenance Unanquily Cheyers A Weapon Cmoc, Inu(es) Assmex Tanny Violence Cruces, Ano A Jusence Acjuceatron for Buncany By A Bucidowg. Torteners Sester Brown Huxers Teorico That Tாகe Farmod Dood Of Cancer In 2003. When Portenex Was About 11 Years Do. Portenex know do Desperes But Salves At Aocle, Ano the Brown Woxersed In Conscienter, These Aboctronce Fancy Memosers Teoricoed On Portenex Dumac, Lesovtally Infeamens the Jus, Portenex Do Nor Have A Lyy Lece.

*12 He thd Never Rececived Douc Remag, And He Rececived the Cuorces He the Mace.

1 sive Resentred.

The Tane Court Acessed It's Desecantion In Denyene Peretroners' The se Moram for Suscrturion of Court - Aresented Comssed. Inwment Was Invegeative, Moram Tred 9-29-14 Morcon Denied D1-2-14, Tane Doom On 10-23-14.

Dost D. Revcial Peretroners's Tane Comssed Tried No Seasment the The Tane Morcous. The Duy Morcon Tried Efferentreds Comssed Were he Evcane Morcon for The Rececivement De he Investentod (2013), And Morcon To Werdend, Nered The Tane. However Peretroners Tried He se Morcon To Eone Has Aresented Comssed (Cc 2622)

*13 Aron A Hanemel D. Tues Morrow Is Was Denied (2 RRS-1). After An Extrensive Reveals Of The Records In Yes Leszance Case Ar. Ene. And The Lnw As My Apply To The Records, The House By Descendation By the Term Count, Denyens Peterroner's Morrow Is Suspirtation of Count Appointed Counsel. Such House By term Count, Calculares To Pettronser's Conuettion. But Bede In Houssin A Doar Don By The Term Counts House, And Teral Counsel Deniesron. The Teral Count Aoused Ets Descendation, In Denytine Pettronser's Morrow. That Was A Pay For Hopl. Wint's Of Imtrunount Recognation, Is the Jest B Pettronser's Accountors For A New Appointed Counsel Was (1) Pettronser Has Heard Appointed Counsel Presently But Was Unser To By then Has Mine Desctions. However the Teral Count Aoused To Appoint the State Teral Counsel. Where Pettronser Transly Beloved Cendres A Consent By Tween He And The Any. Be Counsel Wanted Nor per the Morons To Suppress Wutell Was Nested. For Ferees By A Reserve Teral. (2) Allorons To Reen To The Transcendion, Rececated

*14 Or The Comment, Is Tars Case Finds To Mler The Requestres D. Case (E.Crmenal Troccones Arosci iscors) As Peretowek the Worrou To $T_{n}$ ( $0 d / D$ ) Rensy In AuStent Tens. An Oursed Rearscy Tars ( $0 d / D$ ) $I_{n}$ Reachown Tire Abodevited Counser. $\Rightarrow$ weet thers Dicy Catenenried To Compee Apposited Counser, To Fensily 1. Mor-Woak, Aeternowledorsd Peretowek tho Me Commen- catron Wor Connted Duscow (17) Mlourth D. Conforment. Ducy To thee the Eos Amensments Requrs Invited By Son Dcument, Suet Dmestow's Creculturto To, Yechocce thos Hem The Dus Recues And Due Conase Deliow. Chod To, Tertrower Is Tars Instinct Case Mr Eoss.

*15

*16 It's Fennfully Discous, As Ine Ours Heard To The Law, Ine Contrastion Heard To I suse's Dovest To Counsel As To Ine Wavيات To Cestion Wavens To Do Fits. To Ine To Tine. We A Profound Fensel, To Heve Counset Tensuess. Woverteless Ine Tine Ounat Heves It's Dovertion Ine Emotive from Agoerest Dounset. Ine Wive Do What Wor Wee Wavere By Fettrance.

We Tensly Feics. When Wovecence Ine Asserow Ine Reoess W. Srate 5275 W .2 d. 69970 (Tev. Cerm. Mp. 109).

Fettrance Fieses We Morow for New Acoerest Counset Tenery 9-29-2014. However Tack We Not Wive $10 - 29 - 2014$ .

(200).

*17 The Pererowne Nava Armonstrad 70, Aso Do No Monerwine the Receurs 70 Sour So As So Distruct The Dovely Preconce De The Countr, D In the roace Wem The Frac Amencesturteus D. Turtzens.

*18 The Perfomier Donsonstaates fainit ing hecood

*19

*20 (Emptases Aode)

*21

Justace Is $E$ SENG CAN $T$ DY, FEONY NOU: In this Instance Case At Sma. Where Are The GHEORING PULES AND PENKEPIES? In DYHER WORDS TIIES CONVECTED BY LEN IN INAMOTT THE CMMOSSEN OF THE TENL CONVETTEN ELEN IN INAMOTT THE CMMOSSEN OF THE TENL CONVETTEN ELEN UN INAMOTT THE DICERENTARY AND UNRENDANIARLE AND, STHOULD OF DISTURBED JUSTICE Is CMELLED, E. DUtry, INKY STHOULD OF ELEMENT AND ACCOUNTED (Ex)"

FARVEE

*22

Certecenee Desverce

*23 IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00351-CR

JOHN LAMAR HAWKINS, Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013-1924-C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, John Lamar Hawkins, was charged by indictment with unlawful possession, with intent to deliver, a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in an amount greater than one gram but less than four grams. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112 (West 2010). The indictment also included an enhancement paragraph pertaining to appellant's prior felony conviction for unlawfully carrying a weapon on a licensed premises. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.02 (West Supp. 2014).

*24

Thereafter, appellant, without the benefit of an agreement with the State, signed a judicial confession, wherein he pleaded guilty to the charged offense and "true" to the enhancement allegation contained in the indictment. Appellant reserved his right to have the jury assess punishment. During the punishment hearing, both appellant and the State presented witnesses, and at the conclusion of the hearing, the jury assessed punishment at forty years' incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice with a $$ 1, 000$ fine. The trial court entered a judgment and sentence in accordance with the jury's verdict and certified appellant's right to appeal. Appellant appeals, and we affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n. 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ("In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance 'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.") (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n. 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).

*25

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), appellant's counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no reversible errors in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel's motion to withdraw on appellant; and (3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response. ^[1] See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response. ^[2] See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised

*26

in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant's attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n. 17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) ("If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.") (citations omitted)). We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court's opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court's judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. ^[3] See Tex. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

*27 Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed April 30, 2015 Do not publish [CRPM]

*28

NOTES

$^{1}$ The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that "the pro se response need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues.'" In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n. 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).

$^{2}$ Nowhere in the record or in the documents received by the Court does appellant suggest that he wants or sought the record but was unable to obtain it. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

$^{3}$ No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition and all copies of the petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. at R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. at R. 68.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n. 22.