Facts
- Jose Nunez-Dosangos was detained in county jail pending trial for assault with a semiautomatic firearm, which carries a potential sentence of three to nine years [lines="18-23"].
- Petitioner had been incarcerated for almost six years and, during this time, accrued presentence time-served and conduct credits exceeding the maximum sentence for the charged offense [lines="31-32", "164"].
- Initially, the trial court denied bail after arraignment, holding that public safety concerns justified the decision [lines="81-82", "115"].
- The murder charge against petitioner was dismissed at the preliminary hearing due to insufficient evidence of his intent [lines="92-93", "394"].
- Petitioner’s preplea report indicated a low risk of recidivism and confirmed accumulated conduct credits during his pretrial detention [lines="125", "211-223"].
Issues
- Whether petitioner’s prolonged pretrial detention, which exceeded the maximum potential sentence for his charge, violated his due process rights [lines="36-38"].
- Whether the trial court's denial of petitioner’s bail motion constituted impermissible punishment in light of due process principles [lines="412-419"].
Holdings
- Petitioner’s pretrial detention was excessive and violated due process as it exceeded the maximum potential sentence for the charge [lines="552-553"].
- The court acknowledged that while initial no-bail determinations serve public safety, prolonged detention became impermissible punishment as the circumstances changed [lines="315-320"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-24-00021-CR MARIO MOBLEY, Appellant V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 102nd District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 23F0584-102 Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens *2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mario Mobley pled guilty to assault on a public servant, a third-degree felony. See T
P ENAL C ODE NN . § 22.01 (Supp.). After Mobley pled true to the State’s punishment enhancement allegations, the jury assessed a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment with a $2,500.00 fine. The trial court imposed the jury’s assessed sentence, and Mobley appeals.
Mobley’s attorney has filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings. Since counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders v. California . Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
On May 29, 2024, counsel mailed to Mobley copies of the brief, the motion to withdraw, and the appellate record. Mobley was informed of his rights to review the record and file a pro se response. On May 29, we informed Mobley that his pro se brief was due on or before June 28. By letter dated July 22, this Court informed Mobley that the case would be set for submission on August 12. We received neither a pro se response from Mobley nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Id.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court. [1] Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice Date Submitted: August 12, 2024
Date Decided: September 13, 2024
Do Not Publish
[1] Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders , grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see T . R. PP P. 68.4.