Case Information
*0 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/1/2015 3:27:39 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 01-14-00832-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/1/2015 3:27:39 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK No. 01-14-00832-CR In the
Court of Appeals For the
First District of Texas At Houston
No. 1173963
In the 183rd District Court Of Harris County, Texas JOSEPH DARYL MATHIS Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee
STATE’S APPELLATE BRIEF D EVON A NDERSON District Attorney Harris County, Texas A LAN C URRY State Bar No: 05263700 Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas J OSEPH S ANCHEZ Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 Tel.: 713/755-5826 FAX No.: 713/755-5809 curry_alan@dao.hctx.net ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ONLY IF REQUESTED BY APPELLANT
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Pursuant to T EX . R. A PP . P. 9.4(g) and T EX . R. A PP . P. 39.1, the State requests
oral argument only if oral argument is requested by the appellant.
i *3 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES Pursuant to T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.2(a)(1)(A), a complete list of the names of all
interested parties is provided below.
Complainant, victim, or aggrieved party:
B. Goldstein
Counsel for the State:
Devon Anderson District Attorney of Harris County Alan Curry Assistant District Attorney on appeal Joseph Sanchez Assistant District Attorney at trial Susan Bishop Assistant District Attorney at trial Appellant or criminal defendant:
Joseph Daryl Mathis
Counsel for Appellant:
Juan Contreras Counsel on appeal Enrique Ramirez Counsel at trial Andre Ligon Counsel at trial
Trial Judge:
Hon. Vanessa Velasquez Presiding Judge ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ................................................ i
IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES ................................................................. ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................... 1
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................... 2
REPLY TO SOLE POINT OF ERROR .................................................................... 2
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 4
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ......................................................................... 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................. 6
iii *5 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES
Dears v. State,
154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) .................................................................. 3
Ex parte Insall,
224 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) .................................................................. 3
Gutierrez v. State,
108 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) .................................................................. 3
Hargesheimer v. State,
182 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) .................................................................. 3
RULES
T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.2(a)(1)(A) ....................................................................................... ii
T EX . R. A PP . P. 39.1 ..................................................................................................... i
T EX . R. A PP . P. 9.4(g) .................................................................................................. i
iv
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE The appellant was charged with the felony offense of aggravated assault of a
public servant (C.R. 13). The appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense in
accordance with a plea bargain with the State (C.R. 60-61). After the trial judge found
that the evidence substantiated the appellant’s guilt, she placed the appellant on
probation for five years (C.R. 66). The State later filed a motion to adjudicate the
appellant’s guilt, alleging that the appellant had violated several conditions of his
probation (C.R. 101-02). After the trial judge found several allegations in the State’s
motion to adjudicate to be true, she assessed the appellant’s punishment at
confinement for seven years in prison (C.R. 118; R.R. II-53). A written notice of
appeal was timely filed (C.R. 115, 120).
STATEMENT OF FACTS The State challenges all factual assertions in the appellant’s brief and presents
its account of the facts within its reply to the appellant’s sole point of error.
*7 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The record does not clearly reflect how the appellant pleaded to the allegations
in the State’s motion to adjudicate. This Court may not have enough information
from this record in order to reform the judgment, but the State is not opposed to
however this Court rules.
REPLY TO SOLE POINT OF ERROR Under his sole point of error, the appellant claims, “The trial court mistakenly
entered a judgment that appellant plead ‘true’ to the allegations in the motion to
adjudicate rather than ‘not true.’” The appellant claims that the judgment in this case
should be reformed to reflect that the appellant pleaded “not true” to the allegations
in the State’s motion to adjudicate. The record does not clearly reflect the appellant’s
plea to the motion to adjudicate, although—in his testimony at the hearing on the
motion to adjudicate—the appellant clearly agreed to several of the allegations set
forth in the State’s motion to adjudicate (R.R. II-32-45). The appellant correctly notes
that the docket sheet reflects that the appellant pleaded “not true” to the allegations in
the State’s motion to adjudicate (C.R. 144).
The appellant does not otherwise challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to
support the trial court’s findings of “true” concerning several of the allegations in the
State’s motion to adjudicate. The appellant does not otherwise claim that the trial
judge abused her discretion in ultimately adjudicating the appellant’s guilt. With
regard to his rights on appeal, there is no real significance to how a defendant pleads
to a motion to adjudicate his guilt or a motion to revoke his probation. See Ex parte
Insall, 224 S.W.3d 213, 215 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Gutierrez v. State, 108 S.W.3d
304 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)); Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906, 912 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006) (citing Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)). As the
appellant is seeking no more relief than reformation, the State leaves with this Court
the decision as to whether to reform the judgment in this case.
CONCLUSION It is respectfully submitted that all things are regular and that the conviction
should be affirmed.
DEVON ANDERSON District Attorney Harris County, Texas /s/ Alan Curry ALAN CURRY Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 755-5826 TBC No. 05263700 curry_alan@dao.hctx.net *10 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned attorney certifies that this computer-generated document has
a word count of 535 words, based upon the representation provided by the word
processing program that was used to create the document.
/s/ Alan Curry ALAN CURRY Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 755-5826 TBC No. 05263700 curry_alan@dao.hctx.net *11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument has been mailed to the
appellant’s attorney at the following address on April 1, 2015:
Juan M. Contreras, Jr.
Attorney at Law
102 South Lockwood
Houston, Texas 77011
/s/ Alan Curry ALAN CURRY Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 755-5826 TBC No. 05263700 curry_alan@dao.hctx.net Date: April 1, 2015