Case Information
*1
1346-15
The STATE OF TEXAS, Appel Report of Criminal Appeals
PRO se Retition for Discretionary Review
Offense-Burglary/habitation
Abel Acosta, Clerk
List of parties: Bexar county District Attorney Susan D. Reed Assistant District Attomeys Jennifer Mcbaniel, Catherine Hayes, Kelsey Downing, Lorina Rummel, Todd Winslow, Tawyer Weibhardt, and melissa Saenz District Attorney Nico Lahoab Qat montgomery represents Appellant in the instant appeal case, Michael Latimer represented the Appellant at the trial court Honorable Judge Maria Tere sseau Herr presided over the Court proceedings COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Price. U.S. TY Abel Acosta, Clerk on Fact: on octaber 25,2011 and An Tive bill of indictment was filed. For the of sense of Burglary habitation force Cause of 2011CRE444 on the indictment it states "on or about the day of september 2011, Lonnie price se did intentionally and knowingly enter a habitation, and therein attempted to commit and committed theft without the effective consent of Ixene bukes the omer owner, I argue the fact that I was never found of any stolen merchandise and was never on those premises, Stated on the San antonio
*2
police Report I was arrested for probable cause.
on Fact:
Stated in the supptementary report witness 1 -Allen stated he observed Actor 2 -price ride by the location at this time actor 1 price was wearing white shorts. I arque the fact that Ive been placed as Actor 1 and Actor 2 and on the supplementary report Actor 1 is woolridge Ronald and Actor 2 is price Lonnie, It States That I was wearing white shorts, Noted on the police Report I Was wearing a yellow shirt and block shorts and woolridge Ronald Was a Red Shirt and white shorts I argue the fact that the witness observed woolridge Ronald ride by the location of the burglary and not me.
on Fact:
I argue on the fact that the witness James edward Allen Dib not see anyone enter a home but James edward Allen States he seen Two males walk into the driveway of the home that was burglarized nowhere in the report does it Say James edward allen seen two males enter the house this is grounds for a new trial.
on Fact:
I argue on these grounds that my fingerprints was not found at the location of the burglary nor
*3
- Was any Stolen merchandise found in my possession and a did not fit the description the witness has given these should be grounds of mistrial. Not only do I question the Attorney I had Did He really just didnt care Because all the errors im finding a Blind man can see.
On Fact: I was given two years probation for something - I didnt do I took prebation to get an of Jail I Violated probation and was sentenced to twenty years in prison I argue the fact that Ive been wrongfully sentenced and been given way to much time for violating probation. I argue the fact that the courts please give me a new trial or reduction of sentence on my behalf of being wrongfully sse sentenced.
On Fact: Dve to the lack of my legal terotat knowledge I ask the courts to please accept this as my Pro se for petition for discretionary review.
Respectfully Submitted, Zornule prive
*4
fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00643-CR
Lonnie PRICE, Appellant v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011CR9144 Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 2, 2015 AFFIRMED
Appellant, Lonnie Price, pled no contest to the charge of burglary of a habitation. On June 11, 2013, the trial court signed an Order of Deferred Adjudication, suspended appellant's sentence, and placed him on community supervision for two years. Later, the State moved to revoke appellant's community supervision on several grounds, including new offenses of evading arrest and assault, as well as failure to take a drug test in compliance with the terms of his community supervision. At a hearing on the motion to revoke, appellant pled "true" to violating a condition of his community supervision, but he pled "not true" to the two new criminal offenses. On June
*5
17, 2014, the trial court revoked appellant's deferred adjudication community supervision, signed a Judgment Adjudicating Guilt, and sentenced appellant to twenty years' confinement. On appeal, appellant's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Appellant was informed of his right to review the record and of his right to file a pro se brief.
Appellant filed a pro se brief raising various fact issues related to his arrest for burglary of a habitation and asking this court to review the case "due to lack of evidence and hearsay." Appellant did not appeal from the June 11, 2013 Order of Deferred Adjudication. We also note that the "Trial Court's Certification of Defendant's Right of Appeal" signed after the original plea agreement states this case "is a plea-bargain, and the defendant has NO right of appeal." Therefore, we do not consider appellant's pro se complaints related to the Order of Deferred Adjudication.
After reviewing the record, we agree the appeal from the Judgment Adjudicating Guilt is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment, and we GRANT appellate counsel's motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n. 1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.). [1]
Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
*6
NOTES
No substitute counsel will be appointed. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 n. 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, 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 must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 68.4.