Deborah Alford v. State ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
13-14-00676-CR
THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
3/12/2015 3:53:30 PM
DORIAN RAMIREZ
CLERK
FILED IN
13th COURT OF APPEALS
CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
NO. 13-14-00676-CR 3/12/2015 3:53:30 PM
______________________________________________________
DORIAN E. RAMIREZ
Clerk
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT
AT CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
______________________________________________________
DEBORAH ALFORD, Appellant
VS
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
______________________________________________________
AN APPEAL FROM THE 94TH DISTRICT COURT
OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
______________________________________________________
APPELLANT’S ANDERS BRIEF
________________________________________________________
PAUL DODSON
TX BAR #05942000
218 LEMING AVE.
CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 78404
TEL: 361.364.7415
FAX: 361.237.1963
PAUL@PAULDODSON.NET
ATTORNEY FOR DEBORAH ALFORD
NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PARTIES
APPELLANT: Deborah Alford
SID# 03731988
TDCJ # 01964870
Marlin Transfer Facility
2893 State Hwy 6
Marlin, TX 76661-6588
TRIAL COUNSEL: Hon. Deeanne Galvan (initial plea)
901 Leopard
Corpus Christi, Tx 78401
Tanya R. Garza (revocation)
302 Rosebud
Corpus Christi, Texas 78404
APPELLATE COUNSEL: Paul Dodson
218 Leming Ave.
Corpus Christi, Tx 78404
paul@pauldodson.net
APPELLEE: The State of Texas
TRIAL COUNSEL: Hon. Mark Skurka
Nueces County District Attorney
ADA Lance Watt (plea)
ADA Young Min C. Burkett (revoca-
tion)
901 Leopard
Corpus Christi, Tx 78401
APPELLATE COUNSEL: Hon. Mark Skurka
Nueces County District Attorney
901 Leopard
Corpus Christi, Tx 78401
i
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
Appellant does NOT request oral argument at the time of sub-
mission.
NOTE ON THE RECORD
Record item Citation in brief
Clerk’s Record C.R.
Supplemental Clerk’s Record Suppl. C.R.
Reporter’s Record (Revocation hearing on Novem- R.R.
ber 3, 2014)
Supplemental Reporter’s Record (Plea hearing sep- Suppl. R.R.
tember 6, 2006)
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PARTIES ................................................ i
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ................................................................. ii
NOTE ON THE RECORD ..................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ iii
LIST OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................... iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................................................................. vi
ISSUE ..........................................................................................................................vii
Is there a colorable issue to raise in this appeal? .......................................... vii
STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................... 7
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 2
ARGUMENT............................................................................................................... 2
Standard for Anders brief .....................................................................................2
Potential issue: charging instruments ................................................................3
Potential issue: pretrial motions .........................................................................4
Potential issue: guilty plea procedures...............................................................4
Potential issue: mental competence ...................................................................6
Potential issue: proof of charges ........................................................................6
Initial possession conviction .......................................................................6
Revocation .....................................................................................................6
Potential issue: punishment ................................................................................8
Potential issue: effective representation ......................................................... 10
Potential issue: fundamental error .................................................................. 11
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ..........................................................................................12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..............................................................................13
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................13
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................. 2
iii
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). ...............................................................2
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991)......................................................... 11
Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) ....................................... 11
Carter v. State, 656 S.W.2d 468 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) .................................... 11
Cobb v. State , 851 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) .......................................6
Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (op. on reh’g) ..........6
Few v. State, 588 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)...........................................3
Furr v. State, 13-14-0008-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 527
(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).............................7
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) ................................................................ 8, 9
Herrera v. State, 951 S.W.2d 197 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997, no
pet.) .........................................................................................................................7
In re Shulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Civ. App. 2008) (original
proceeding) ............................................................................................................3
Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. ref’d)..............3
Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) ........................................7
Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)...............................7
McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) ..................................................3
McNew v. State, 608 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) ....................................9
Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (panel op.) ..................7
Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) ..............................................7
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988)..........................................................................2
Salinas v. State, 163 S.W.3d 734 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ................................... 10
Samuel v. State, 477 S.W.2d 611 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) .....................................9
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) .................................................... 10
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) ................................ 10
iv
Trevino v. State, 519 S.W.2d 864, 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) ...........................6
Vela v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 7281, 2014 WL 3049482 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi 2014, no pet.) (memo. op) ..........................................9
Wester v. State, 542 S.W.2d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) ......................................6
Statutes
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 21.03 ..........................................................................3
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.13 ................................................................. 4, 5, 6
TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.002 ..............................................................4
TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.102 ..............................................................4
TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.112 ......................................................... 3, 8
TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.35 ........................................................................................8
Other Authorities
Schmolesky, TEX. CRIM. PRAC. GUIDE § 90.08 ................................................... 11
v
NO. 13-14-00676-CR
______________________________________________________
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT
AT CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
______________________________________________________
DEBORAH ALFORD, Appellant
VS
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
______________________________________________________
AN APPEAL FROM THE 94TH DISTRICT COURT
OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
______________________________________________________
APPELLANT’S ANDERS BRIEF
________________________________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
Counsel for Appellant Deborah Alford files this Anders brief in
these consolidated appeals.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
NATURE OF THE CASE Defendant was charged with possession of
cocaine in Cause # 06-CR-2619-C. She was
placed on community supervision, which was
revoked in 2014 when she pled true to a mo-
tion to revoke her probation.
TRIAL JUDGE Hon. Bobby Galvan
TRIAL COURT/COUNTY 94th District Court, Nueces County
vi
DISPOSITION IN THE The trial court revoked Defendant’s commu-
TRIAL COURT nity supervision in the possession case, and
adjudicated guilt on a robbery charge. De-
fendant was sentenced to two years in the
state jail on the possession conviction and
three years’ imprisonment on the robbery
conviction.
Defendant appealed the possession case and
the robbery case (13-15-00681).
ISSUE
Is there a colorable issue to raise in this appeal?
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In 2006, Alford pled guilty to delivery of cocaine. She was sen-
tenced to two years of state jail time, with her sentence probated for
three years. C.R. 37. Her community service on this charge was extended
five times:
Date of order New termination date Record reference
4/10/08 9/6/11 C.R. 61, 63
7/14/11 9/6/12 C.R. 93
12/7/11 9/6/13 C.R. 107
8/14/13 9/6/14 C.R. 110
8/20/14 9/6/15 Suppl. C.R. 5
vii
In October 2014, the State moved the trial court to revoke her
community service. C.R. 124. At the hearing, the State asked the trial
court to sentence Alford to two years in state jail on the possession
charge and three years’ imprisonment on another charge. R.R. 8. Al-
ford’s counsel requested reinstatement of probation on both charges.
R.R. 8-9. The trial court followed the State’s recommendations on revo-
cation and sentencing. R.R. 10.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
An appeal in this case would be frivolous as there are no colorable
issues to raise.
ARGUMENT
Issue restated: Is there a colorable issue to raise in this appeal?
Standard for Anders brief. The attorney’s role as an advocate
requires that counsel support a client’s appeal to the best of his or her
ability. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A defendant's right to
assistance of counsel, however, does not included the right to have an
attorney urge frivolous or unmeritorious claims on appeal. Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83-84 (1988). An attorney may not properly make
2
frivolous arguments to a court. McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429,
436 (1988); In re Shulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 fn 8 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008) (original proceeding). The purpose of an Anders brief is to ensure
that counsel has carefully reviewed the trial record and thoroughly re-
searched the law before deciding that the appeal is frivolous. Id, at 439.
Counsel must resolve all doubts and ambiguous legal questions in favor
of his or her client and file an Anders brief only if there are no argu-
ments that could conceivably persuade the court. Id. , at 444; Johnson v.
State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. ref’d)
Potential issue: charging instruments. An indictment should
allege all that the State is required to prove. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
art. 21.03. An indictment drafted in the language of the statute defining
an offense is ordinarily sufficient. Few v. State, 588 S.W.2d 578, 583
(Tex. Crim. App. 1979).
Possession of controlled substance. Pursuant to TEX. HEALTH &
SAFETY CODE § 481.112(a), except as authorized, “a person commits an
offense if the person knowingly manufactures, delivers, or possesses
with intent to deliver a controlled substance listed in Penalty Group 1.”
“Controlled substance” means “a substance, including a drug, an adul-
terant, and a dilutant, listed in … Penalty Groups 1, 1-A, or 2 through
3
4. The term includes the aggregate weight of any mixture, solution, or
other substance containing a controlled substance.” TEX. HEALTH &
SAFETY CODE § 481.002(5). “Penalty Group 1” includes cocaine. Id.,
§ 481.102(3)(D). “Deliver” means “to transfer, actually or constructive-
ly, to another a controlled substance…. The term includes offering to
sell a controlled substance, counterfeit substance, or drug parapherna-
lia.” TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.002(8).
The possession indictment alleges that Alford
on or about MARCH 11, 2006, in Nueces County, Texas, did then
and there knowingly and intentionally make an actual transfer or a
constructive transfer of COCAINE, a controlled substance listed in
Penalty Group 1 of the Texas Controlled Substances Act, to
TODD BEACH, and that the amount transferred was, by aggregat-
ed weight, including any adulterants or dilutants, less than one
gram….
Because this indictment tracks the statutory language, the charging instrument
is legally sufficient.
Potential issue: pretrial motions. No pretrial motions were filed
on behalf of Alford in this case.
Potential issue: guilty plea procedures. A judge accepting a
plea of guilty or no contest is required to provide certain statutory ad-
monishments. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.13(a). A judge may do so
4
orally or in writing. If in writing, there must be a statement signed by
the defendant and his attorney that he understands the admonishments
and is aware of the consequences of his plea. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
art. 26.13(d). Substantial compliance is sufficient, in the absence of an
affirmative showing by the defendant that he was not aware of the con-
sequences of his plea and that he was mislead or harmed by the admon-
ishment of the court. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.13(c).
The record shows substantial compliance with the admonish-
ment requirements in all three cases:
(1) range of punishment C.R. 15
R.R. 7
(2) recommendation of the prosecuting C.R. 12
attorney as to punishment is not binding
on the court
(3) in plea agreement, the trial court must C.R. 14, 19, 20, 27
give its permission before the defendant
may prosecute an appeal on any matter in
the case except for those matters raised by
written motions filed prior to trial
(4) consequences of non-citizenship Defendant is a U.S. citi-
zen.
C.R. 19
(5) sex offender registration requirements Not in issue.
5
Potential issue: mental competence. A guilty plea may not be
accepted unless the defendant is mentally competent and the plea is free
and voluntary. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.13(b). Alford and her
counsel indicated that Alford was competent and had freely made his
plea. CR 18, 21, Suppl. R.R. 4-5; R.R. 5-6.
Potential issue: proof of charges. There was no error in the
proof of the charges against Alford.
Initial possession conviction. The defendant’s judicial confession
admitting all elements of the offense is sufficient evidence to support a
conviction. Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343, 353 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)
(op. on reh’g); Trevino v. State, 519 S.W.2d 864, 866 (Tex. Crim. App.
1975). Alford judicially confessed to this charge. C.R. 28. The police re-
ports introduced, without objection, also supported the charge. C.R. 31
et seq., Suppl. R.R. 6.
Revocation. Whether to revoke community supervision rests
within the discretion of the trial court. Wester v. State, 542 S.W.2d 403,
405 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). The burden of proof in a probation revo-
cation is measured by a preponderance of the evidence. Cobb v. State,
851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Appellate review of evi-
6
dence presented at a revocation hearing is in the light most favorable to
the trial court's decision. Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1979).
In its motion to revoke probation, the State’s allegations included
Alford’s submission of positive urine analysis for cocaine. C.R. (rob-
bery) 94. She pled true to at least one violation, including the positive
urine tests. C.R. 116; R.R. 7. In reviewing a probation revocation, a sin-
gle violation of probation is sufficient to support the trial court's deci-
sion to revoke. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App.
1980) (panel op.); Solis v. State, 13-14-0008-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS
527, *1 fn 1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op.);
Herrera v. State, 951 S.W.2d 197, 199 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997,
no pet.).
Limited review. An appellant may not appeal matters relating to
the original plea proceeding after his community supervision has been
revoked and an adjudication of guilt formally made. Manuel v. State,
994 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The two limited excep-
tions to this principle are the “void judgment” exception and the “ha-
beas corpus” exception. Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664, 667 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2001). Neither exception applies here.
7
Potential issue: punishment. The trial court imposed punish-
ment in accord with statutory requirements.
• Alford was sentenced to two years for possession. De-
livery of a controlled substance in Penalty Group 1 is a
state jail felony if the amount of the controlled sub-
stance is, by aggregate weight, including adulterants or
dilutants, less than one gram. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE § 481.112(b). In this case, an individual adjudged
guilty of a state jail felony may be punished by confine-
ment in a state jail for any term of not more than two
years or less than 180 days. TEX. PENAL CODE §
12.35(a).
• The trial court also fined her $1,500. C.R. (possession)
37. The revocation judgment, however, did not include
a fine. C.R. 122.
The sentence is within the range of punishment for the charge.
The United States Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual
punishment.” U.S. CONST. amend. VIII. “Embodied in the Constitu-
tion’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments is the ‘precept of justice
that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to
[the] offense.’” Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 59 (2010). Proportionality
contests include challenges to the length of term-of-years sentences
given circumstances in a particular case. Id. In these challenges, courts
analyze the claim with a threshold comparison of the gravity of the of-
fense and severity of the sentence. Only in the “rare case,” where the
8
threshold comparison suggests gross disproportionality will the courts
then compare the defendant’s sentence with the sentences received by
other offenders in the same jurisdiction and with the sentences imposed
for the same crime in other jurisdictions. Id.
In these appeals, Alford’s offenses allowed punishment in the
range imposed on her. When the punishment assessed is within the
range of punishment established by the legislature, there is no violation
of the constitutional provisions against cruel and unusual punishment.
McNew v. State, 608 S.W.2d 166, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Samuel v.
State, 477 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). The judgments ad-
judicating guilt reflect the same sentence that the court imposed at the
hearings. R.R. 7; C.R. 37, R.R. 10; C.R. 122.
There is no evidence from the record to suggest the 534 days
credited on the possession charge were improperly applied. The trial
court allowed the sentences in the two cases to be served concurrently.
There is no indication of disproportionality between the length sen-
tence and the severity of the offenses. Vela v. State, 2014 Tex. App.
LEXIS 7281, 2014 WL 3049482 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2014, no
pet.) (memo. op).
9
Potential issue: effective representation. To show ineffective
assistance of trial counsel, an appellant must show by a preponderance
of the evidence that counsel's representation fell below the standard of
prevailing professional norms and that there is a reasonable probability
that, but for counsel's deficiency, the result of the trial would have been
different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984); Salinas v.
State, 163 S.W.3d 734, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Review of counsel's
representation is highly deferential, and there is a strong presumption
that counsel's conduct fell within a wide range of reasonable representa-
tion. Salinas, 163 S.W.3d at 740. A reviewing court will rarely be in a po-
sition on direct appeal to fairly evaluate the merits of an ineffective as-
sistance claim. Id. To overcome the presumption of reasonable profes-
sional assistance, “any allegation of ineffectiveness must be firmly
founded in the record, and the record must affirmatively demonstrate
the alleged ineffectiveness.” Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1999).
Alford was represented by counsel at every hearing. She indicated
she was satisfied with her representation at the hearings prior to her be-
ing placed on probation. C.R. 28 (SX-1). Ineffective assistance of coun-
sel is not demonstrated.
10
Potential issue: fundamental error. In rare situations, appellate
courts reverse convictions even when the error resulting in the reversal
was not properly preserved at trial. Carter v. State, 656 S.W.2d 468, 469–
470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983);. The doctrine of fundamental error is lim-
ited in Texas criminal practice to those federal constitutional errors la-
beled as “structural” by the United States Supreme Court. Cain v. State,
947 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), referencing Arizona v.
Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-310 (1991).
The district court had both subject matter jurisdiction (felonies
adjudicated in the district court), and geographic jurisdiction (offenses
committed in Nueces County). None of the types of fundamental error
that would undermine the fairness of the proceedings against Alford
appear in the record. Schmolesky, TEX. CRIM. PRAC. GUIDE § 90.08
[g][i].
11
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Deborah Alford’s appellate counsel, has dili-
gently reviewed the entire record and concludes there is no reversible
error, and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant the
pending motion to withdraw as counsel.
Respectfully submitted
_________________________
PAUL DODSON
TX BAR #05942000
218 LEMING AVE.
CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 78404
TEL: 361.364.7415
FAX: 361.237.1963
paul@pauldodson.net
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
By affixing my signature below, I certify that a true copy of the
foregoing document was delivered on March 12, 2015, to the following
attorneys in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure:
Mr. Doug Norman Ms Deborah Alford
Nueces County District At- SID# 03731988
torney Appellate Division TDCJ # 01964870
901 Leopard Marlin Transfer Facility
Corpus Christi, Tx 78401 2893 State Hwy 6
Marlin, TX 76661-6588
_________________________
PAUL DODSON
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
The number of words in this document, excluding those provi-
sions described in TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(1) is 1995. This figure is provid-
ed in reliance on the word count of the computer program used to pre-
pare this document.
13
NO. 13-14-00676-CR
______________________________________________________
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT
AT CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
______________________________________________________
DEBORAH ALFORD, Appellant
VS
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
______________________________________________________
AN APPEAL FROM THE 94TH DISTRICT COURT
OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
______________________________________________________
APPENDIX
________________________________________________________
Tab Document
1. Indictment
2. Judgment Revoking Community Supervision
2
I c._ •
{ (HI - (1 (-; ( J i i...j ·- l. 1 i i u -· / .2 0
.-:\ i !-· i ·; !< ; : • i i !- !·",( H< \i Ar< l t.
:·"') J t1: 1 t H 1t1 - l .: . U
1 1 i\. ! H : U ;:-) / 2 :-: / i. -
\)1 1:::,, \\ i \I .\i-\:\i./ I ir l ( ;-.J
fBI NO.
DPS N-'.).
D.O.B. 08-25-1957
DATE OF ARREST!
ARRESTING AGENCY:
BOND: J c / _'- By:
(7 JL/, .
NC'. c:u-Cil- a 01 Cf- c_
THE STATE Of TEXAS VS. DEBGRAH ALFORD
CHARGE: DELIVERY OF COCA NE
PENALTY GROUP 1 LESS THAN ONE GRJ\M
STATUTE: TEXAS CONTROLLED SUBST.l\NCES ACT SECTION 481.112
DEGREE',! STATE Jl\IL FELONY
COURT:
...........
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
IN THE NAM! AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
The duly Gr3nd Jury of Nueces County, Texas,
presents in the District of County, Texas, that
DEBORAH ALFORD, defendant,
on or about MARCH 11, .2006, in Nw:"ces County, Tex3s, did then and
t hsre knowingly and int Ent ion ally rn2d:e an actual t:ransf er or a
1-uctj_ ve transfer of C'OCJ.\INE, a controlled sub.stance listed
in Penalty ::;rou:;::, 1 ·:Jf the Texas Cont rcllPd Sub:3tan('.e3 Act, to
TODD BE.Z\CH, and that thP arnc,unt transft:'rred was, by aggregated
including any eidul ti::, rants or di lutant s, less than one
..:..gram,
against the peace and digriity of the Stcite.
"'i:. •. ' ] !,
; lj
-
•;t
II \ .
,·'
L/ V ...
.
INC SID J0067150
\'·
\ I
·7·uy-o -) J 71{ If{\,
\__1 l .,
ALFORD D BORAH MAKlE
DOK 0 6 7 l CJ 5 7
6
POSS W I f MAN/DEL PG FS 1: indictment
CASE No. 06-CR-2619-C COUNT SINGLE
INCIDENT No./TRN: 9089327592
THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE 94TH DISTRICT
§
v. § COURT
§
DEBORAH ALFORD § NUECES COUNTY, TExAs
§
STATE ID No.: TX03731988 §
JUDGMENT REVOKING COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
Date Judgment
Judge Presiding: HON. BOBBY GALVAN 111312014
Entered:
Attorney for
Attorney for State: YOUNG BURKETT TANYAGARZA
Defendant:
Date of Original Community Supervision Order: Statute for Offense:
TEXAS CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT
91612006
SECTION 481.112
Offense for which Defendant Convicted:
DELIVERY OF COCAINE
Date of Offense:
3/1112006
Degree of Offense: Plea to Motion to Revoke: Findings on Deadly Weapon:
STATE JAIL FELONY TRUE NIA
Original Punishment Assessed:
TWO (2) YEARS STATE JAIL DIVISION, TDCJ PROBATED THREE (3) YEARS FINE: $ NIA
Shock Community Supervision:
NIA FINE: $ NIA
Date Sentence Imposed: 111312014 Date Sentence to Commence: 111312014
Punishment and Place
TWO (2) YEARS STATE JAIL DIVISION, TDCJ
of Confinement:
THIS SENTENCE SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY with Cause No. 08-CR-3889-C of Nueces County,
Texas.
Fine: Court Costs: Restitution: Restitution Payable to:
$NIA $ 2£ ....
$NIA D VICTIM (see below) D AGENCY/AGENT (see below)
IS ORIGINAL JUDGMENT I SENTENCE REFORMED? NO
D In accordance with Section 12.44(a) Penal Code, the Court finds that the ends of justice would best be served by punishment as
a Class A misdemeanor. Defendant is adjudged to be guilty of a state jail felony and is assessed punishment indicated above.
Sex Offender Registration Requirements do not apply to the Defendant. TEX. CODE CRIM. PRoc. chapter 62
The age of the victim at the time of the offense was NIA .
If Defendant is to serve sentence in TDCJ. enter incarceration periods in chronological order.
From to From to From to
Time From to From to From to
Credited:
If Defendant is to serve sentence in county jail or is given credit toward fine and costs. enter days credited below.
DAYS NOTES:
All pertinent information, names and assessments indicated above are incorporated into the language of the judgment below by reference.
This cause was called in Nueces County, Texas. The State appeared by her District Attorney.
Counsel I Waiver of Counsel (select one)
12] Defendant appeared in person with Counsel.
S CA N N E D
D Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to representation by counsel in writing in open court.
The State filed a motion to revoke Defendant's community supervision. After hearing the State's plea,
the evidence submitted, and reviewing the record, the Court GRANTS the State's motion. The Court's record that'I>'etendant
122 CLERK
PATSY PEREZ, DISTRICT
06-2619C REV .. doc Page 1 of2 NUECES COUNTY
2: Judgment Revoking Community Supervision
was previously convicted of a felony offense and punishment was assessed as indicated above. The record indicates the Court ordered
imposition of Defendant's sentence of confinement suspended and placed Defendant on community supervision for 3 YEARS.
The Court FINDS Defendant has violated the conditions of community supervision as set out in the State's ORIGINAL
Motion to Revoke Community Supervision as follows:
SEE ATTACHED COPY OF MOTION TO REVOKE.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the previous orders in this cause suspending imposition of sentence of confinement and
placing Defendant on community supervision REVOKED. (select one of the following)
D The Court ORDERS Defendant punished in accordance with the judgment and sentence originally entered in this cause.
1:81 Finding it to be in the interest of justice, the Court ORDERS Defendant punished in accordance with the reformed judgment and
sentence indicated above.
Punishment Options (select one)
1:81 Confinement in Institutional Division. The Court ORDERS the authorized agent of the State of Texas or the Sheriff of this
County to take, safely convey, and deliver Defendant to the Director, Institutional Division, TDCJ. The Court ORDERS
Defendant to be confined for the period and in the manner indicated above. The Court ORDERS Defendant remanded to the custody of
the Sheriff of this county until the Sheriff can obey the directions of this sentence. The Court ORDERS that upon release from
confinement, Defendant proceed immediately to the Parole Division, TDCJ. Once there, the Court ORDERS Defendant to pay, or
make arrangements to pay, any remaining unpaid fines, court costs, and restitution as ordered by the Court above.
D County Jail-Confinement I Confinement in Lieu of Payment. The Court ORDERS Defendant immediately committed to
the custody of the Sheriff of County, Texas on the date the sentence is to commence. Defendant shall be confined in the
County Jail for the period indicated above. The Court ORDERS that upon release from confinement, Defendant shall proceed
immediately to the . Once there, the Court ORDERS Defendant to pay, or make arrangements to pay, any remaining unpaid
fines, court costs, and restitution as ordered by the Court above.
D Fine Only Payment. The punishment assessed against Defendant is for a FINE ONLY. The Court ORDERS Defendant to proceed
immediately to the Office of the County . Once there, the Court ORDERS Defendant to pay or make arrangements to pay all
fines and court costs as ordered by the Court in this cause.
The Court ORDERS Defendant's sentence EXECUTED.
The Court ORDERS that Defendant is given credit noted above on this sentence for the time spent incarcerated.
The Court further ORDERS Defendant to pay all fines, court costs, and restitution as indicated above.
Signed and entered on _ _ _ _ _
123
06-2619C REV __ doc Page 2 of2