Christopher Ray Olivarez v. State ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
12-15-00108-CR
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
11/23/2015 7:00:37 PM
Pam Estes
CLERK
CAUSE NUMBER 12-15-00108-CR RECEIVED IN
12th COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
11/23/2015 7:00:37 PM
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE PAM ESTES
Clerk
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT TYLER 11/23/2015
CHRISTOPHER RAY OLIVAREZ
VS.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
CAUSE NUMBER 3 0,3 80
IN THE 3RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
Colin D. McFall
Attorney at Law
513 North Church Street
Palestine, Texas 75801-2962
Telephone: 903-723-1923
Facsimile: 903-723-0269
Email: cmcfall@mcfall-law-office.com
Counsel for Appellant
Page - 1 - of 23
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Pursuant to Rule 38.1 (a), Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appelhnt
provides a complete list of all parties and the names and addresses of Counsel:
Defendant Christopher Ray Olivarez
and Appellant:
Defendant's Trial Colin D. McFall
and Appellate Counsel: Attorney at Law
513 North Church Street
Palestine, Texas 75801-2965
Telephone: 903-723-1923
Facsimile: 903-723-0269
State's Trial Scott Holden
and Appellate Counsel: Anderson County District Attorney's Office
500 North Church Street, Suite 38
Palestine, Texas 75801
Telephone: 903-723-7400
Facsimile: 903-723-7818
Page - 2 - of 23
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 6
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT 10
ISSUE PRESENTED
I. THE APPELLATE COURT SHOULD ALLOW COUNSEL, UPON
MAKING THE DETERMINATION THERE WAS NO ERROR IN
THE TRIAL COURT, TO WITHDRAW AND APPELLANT
ALLOWED A REASONABLE TIME TO FILE A PRO SE
BRIEF 11
STATEMENT OF FACTS 12
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 14
ARGUMENT 17
PRAYER 21
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.. 22
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 23
Page - 3 - of 23
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES PAGE
UNITED STATES
Anders v. California, 386 U.S 738, 1967 20
TEXAS
Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) 18
Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App.[Panel Op.] 1979 .19
Harris v. State, 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005, no pet.) 18
Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659, 661
(Tex.App-San Antonio 1996, no pat.) 19
Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809,814 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) .19
Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 19 193-94
(Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978) 18
Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) 18
Leach v. State, 170 S.W.3d 669, 672
(Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet ref d.) 18
Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.Crim.App.2006.) .17, 18
Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) 18
Page - 4 - of 23
Watts v. State, 645 S.W.2d 461, 463 (Tex.Crim.App.1983 19
RULES AND STATUTES PAGE
TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Article 42.12, 5(b), Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 17
TEXAS PENAL CODE
Section 12.33, Texas Penal Code 19
TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
Rule 9.4(i) (3), Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 22
Rule 38.1(a), Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 2
Rule 38.1(e), Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 10
Page - 5 - of 23
SIOZ-£Z-II
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On the 18th day of November 2010, an Anderson County Grand Juryreturned
a single count Indictment, charging Appellant withBurglary of a Habitation, a
second-degree felony. (C.R., Vol. 1, Pg. 6).
On the 19th day of August 2011, Appellant plead guilty to the single count of
Burglary of a Habitation. However, :in exchange for his plea of Guilty, the Court
deferred adjudicating guilt, and sentenced Appellant to eight (8) years of Deferred
Adjudication Community Supervision.(C.R., Vol. 1, Pg. 24).
On the 12th day of July 2012, Appellee filed a Motion to Proceed with
Adjudication of Guilt and Sentence.(C.R., Vol. 1, Pg. 39). On the 9th day of
October 2012, Appellant with the assistance of Counsel(C.R., Vol. 1, Pg. 58),
waived a hearing on the Motion to Proceal with Adjudication of Guilt and
Sentence., and agreed to a modification of Appellant's community supervision.
(C.R., Vol. 1, Pg. 60). As a result of the modification, the Court dismissed the
Motion to Proceed with Adjudication of Guilt and Sentence.(C.R., Vol. 1, Pg. 62).
On the 25th day of February 2013, Appellee filed a Motion to Proceed with
Adjudication of Guilt and Sentence.(C.R., Vol. 1, Pg. 67). Once again, with the
assistance of Counsel(C.R., Vol. 1, F'g. 74), waived a hearing on the Motion to
Page - 6 - of 23
SIOZ-£Z-II
Proceed with Adjudication of Guilt and Sentence, and agreed to a modification of
Appellant's community supervision.(C.R., Vol. 1, Pg. 79). In exchange for the
agreed modification, the Court dismissed the Motion to Proceed with Adjudication
of Guilt and Sentence. (C.R., Vol. 1, Pg. 85).
On the 3rd day of March 2014, the Court again modified Appellant's
conditions of Community Supervision (C.R., Vol. 1, Pg. 920).
On. the 28th day of July 2014, Appellee filed yet another Motion to Proceed
with Adjudication ofGuilt and Sentence (C.R., Vol. 1, Pg. 94), arid then filed a
State's First AmendedMotion to Proceed with Adjudication of Guilt and Sentence,
on the 27th day of August 2014. (C.R., Vol. 1, Pg. 102).
On the 17th day of March 2015, the Trial Court heard the State's First
Amended Motion to Proceed with Adjudication of Guilt and Sentence(R.R., Vol. 3,
Pg. 46, L. 13). The Trial Court confirmed Appellant was the same individual
presently on probation in cause number 30,380.(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 47, L. 8).
Appellant then waived the reading of the State's First Amended Motion to Proceed
with Adjudication of Guilt and Sentence(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 47, L. 14) and plead true
to the allegations contained therein.(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 47, L. 19). An allegation of
the State's First Amended Motion to Proceed with Adjudication of Guilt and
Page - 7 - of 23
SIOZ-£Z-II
Sentence was Manufacture or Delivery of Substance In Penalty Group I, one gram
or more but less than four grams, on or about the 5th day of July 2014. (C.R., Vol. 1,
Pg. 102).
Over the next two days, the trial courtheard testimony in Appellant's Jury
Trial, in Cause Number 31,900 (12-15-00107-CR on appeal). Appellant presented
his mother as a witness, Adelfa Arzola(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 173, L. 8). Both the
Appellee (R.R., Vol. 4, Pg. 86, L. 18) and Appellant (R.R., Vol. 4, Pg. 86, L. 24)
requested the trial court take judicial notice of the testimonypresented in the jury
trial and consider said testimony in the Sentencing Hearing on th€State's First
Amended Motion to Proceed with Adjudicatbn of Guilt and Sentence.
On the 18th day of March 2015, the Court sentence Appellant totwenty (20)
years confinement within the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. (R.R., Vol. 4, Pg. 88, L. 9).
On the 18th day of March, Appellant filed the Trial Court's Certificate of
Defendant's Right of Appeal. (C.R., Vol. 1, Pg.116).
On the 17th day of April 2015, Appellant filed allotice of Appeal. (C.R.,
Vol. 1, Pg. 133), Request for the Clerk's Record and Designation of Matters for
Inclusion (C.R., Vol. 1, Pg. 123), Request for the Reporter's Record (C.R., Vol. 1,
Page - 8 - of 23
SIOZ-£Z-II
Pg. 121), Defendant's Motion for New Trial (C.R., Vol. 1, Pg.127), and Appellant
filed Defendant's Motion for a Free Reporter's Record on Appeal (C.R., Vol. 1, Pg.
130).
Page - 9 - of 23
SIOZ-£Z-II
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Pursuant to Rule 38.1 (e), Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellant
provides the following Statement Regarding Oral Argument
Appellant does not request Oral Argument
Page - 10 - of 23
SIOZ-£Z-II
ISSUE PRESENTED
THE APPELLATE COURT SHOULD ALLOW
COUNSEL, UPON MAKING THE DETERMINATION
THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE TRIAL COURT, TO
WITHDRAW AND APPELLANT ALLOWED A
REASONABLE TIME TO FILE A PRO SE BRIEF.
Page - 11 - of 23
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On or about the 5th day of July 2014 (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 127, L. 4), Corporal
Ricki Baker (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 125, L. 9) and Officer Justin Blanks (R..R., Vol. 3,
Pg. 129, L. 15) of the Palestine Police Department(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 125, L. 9),
received information from a confidential informant thathe would be traveling
eastbound on Palestine Avenue towards Executive Inn & Suites in a gray Pontiac
G6 with Appellant as the passenger(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 128, L. 6), who would be
transporting methamphetamine(R.R., Vol. 4, Pg. 5, L. 11) and have a shotgun with
him. (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 148, L. 5).
Corporal Ricki Baker and Officer Justin Blanks observed the grey Pontiac
G6 traveling eastbound on East Palestine Avenue and pulled in behind the vehicle
(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 130, L. 24) and performed a traffic stop (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 132, L.
23) on a Pontiac G6 (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 131, L. 17) upon observing no rear license
plate (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 130, L. 24). The vehicle was driven byMarcus Howard
(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 131, L. 17). Appellant was the passenger in the vehicle. (R.R.,
Vol. 3, Pg. 135, L. 5). On approach, Corporal Ricki Baker observed a full size
shotgun (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 135, L. 7) in the vehicle. Officers immediately detained
(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 136, L. 15) both occupants of the vehicle. CorporalRicki Baker
Page - 12 - of 23
requested and received consent to search the vehicle from Mrcus Howard. (R.R.,
Vol. 3, Pg. 137, L. 6). A digital scale (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 138, L. 20) was found in a
tool bag (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 137, L. 11) in the passenger side (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 137,
L. 9) floorboard (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 137, L. 11), and two bags of marijuana and one
bag of methamphetamine, weighing approximately four grams (R.R., Vol. 4, Pg.
16, L. 13), were found in the glove compartment.(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 138, L. 15).
Appellant claimed the tool bag with the scale inside.(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 148, L. 9),
but denied knowledge of the narcotics(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 150, L. 10).
Page - 13 - of 23
SIOZ-£Z-II
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
THE APPELLATE COURT SHOULD ALLOW
COUNSEL, UPON MAKING THE DETERMINATION
THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE TRIAL COURT, TO
WITHDRAW AND APPELLANT ALLOWED A
REASONABLE TIME TO FILE A PRO SE l3RIEF.
Counsel has undertaken a conscientious examinationof the record and is
unable to identify an arguable basis for appeal.
A Trial Court's detcrmination to proceed with an adjudication of guilt is
reviewable in the same manner as a revocation hearing. Appellate review of an
Order adjudicating guilt and revoking community supervision is limited to
determining whether the Trial Court abused its dicretion. The trial court abuses its
discretion in revoking community supervision if, as to every ground alleged, the
State fails to meet its burden of proof.
An Order adjudicating guilt and revoking community supervision must be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the greater weight of the
credible evidence, which would create a reasonable belief that the Defendant has
violated a condition of community supervision In determining the sufficiency of
Page - 14 - of 23
SIOZ-£Z-II
the evidence to sustain a revocation we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the trial court's ruling.
A finding of a single violation of community supervision is sufficient to
support revocation. Thus, in order to prevail, an Appellant must successfully
challenge all the findngs that support the revocation order.
A plea of true to even one of the State's allegations is sufficient to support a
revocation of deferred adjudication community supervision. When Appellant pleas
true, the sufficiency of the evidence I o support therevocation may not be
challenged.
For the above stated reasons, an appeal, based upon an argument that the
Trial Court abused its discretion infinding the alleged allegations true and
adjudicating Appellant guilty,is frivolous.
Furthermore, the court assessed punishment within the range authorized by
the legislature for a Second Degree Felony. Generally, the Appellate Court will not
disturb a penalty assessed within the range of punishment
For the above stated reasons, an appeal, based upon the argumentthat the
Trial Court abused its discretion in sentencing Appelint, is frivolous.
Counsel has made a full and careful review of all matters in tit instant cause
Page - 15 - of 23
SIOZ-£Z-II
and cannot find any reasonable point of error to legitimately raise for purposes of
appeal. As a result, Counsel has filed the instant Anders Brief.
Page - 16 - of 23
ARGUMENT
THE APPELLATE COURT SHOULD ALLOW
COUNSEL, UPON MAKING THE DETERMINATION
THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE TRIAL COURT, TO
WITHDRAW AND APPELLANT ALLOWED A
REASONABLE TIME TO FILE A PRO SE BRIEF.
Counsel has undertaken a conscientious examinationof the Reporter's
Record and the Clerk's Record. Counselis unable to identify an arguable basis for
appeal.
A Trial Court's determination to proceed with an adjudication of guilt is
reviewable in the same manner as a revocation hearing.See Article 42.12, 5(b),
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Appellate review of an Order adjudicating guilt
and revoking community supervision is limited to determining whether the Trial
Court abused its discretion. See Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763
(Tex.Crirn.App.2006). In determining questions concerning sufficiency of the
evidence in revocation cases, the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the
evidence„ Id. An Order adjudicating guilt and revoling community supervision
must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the greater weight
Page - 17 - of 23
of the credible evidence which would create a reasonable belief that the Defendant
has violated a condition of community supervision/d. at 763-64. In determining
the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a revocation, we view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the trial court's ruling.Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419, 421
(Tex. Crim. App. 1979).
In the instant appeal, a Jury found Appellantguilty, after he plead guilty, to
the same offense, alleged in the State's First Amended Motion to Proceed with
Adjudication of Guilt and Sentence.
A finding of a single violation of community supervision is sufficient to
support revocation. See Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871
(Tex.Crirn.App.1980); Leach v. State, 170 S.W.3d 669, 672 (Tex.App,Fort Worth
2005, pet. ref d.). The trial court abuses its discretion in revoking community
supervision if, as to every ground alleged, the State fails to meetits burden of proof
Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Tex.Crim.App.1984). Thus, in order to
prevail, an Appellant must successfully challenge all the findings that support the
revocation order. See Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-94 (Tex.Crim.App.
[Panel Op.] 1978); Harris v. State, 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005, no
pet.).
Page - 18 - of 23
A plea of true to even one of the State's allegations is sufficient to support a
revocation of deferred adjudication community supervisionSee Watts v. State, 645
S.W.2d 461, 463 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). WhenAppellant pleas true, the sufficiency
of the evidence to support the revocation may not be challengedCoie v. State, 578
S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App.[Panel Op.] 1979;Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659,
661 (Tex.App-San Antonio 1996, no pat.).
Appellant plead true to the allegations contained within theState's First
Amended Motion to Proceed with Adjudication of Guilt and Sentence.
For the above stated reasons, an appeal, based upon an argument that the
Trial Court abused its discretion infinding the alleged allegations true and
adj udicating Appellant guilty,is frivolous.
Furthermore, the court assessed punishment within the range authorized by
the legislature for a Second Degree Felony. Section 12.33, Texas Penal Code.
Generally, the Appellate Court will not disturb a penalty assessed within the range
of punishment. Jackson v. State, 680 ,S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex.CrimApp.1984).
For the above stated reasons, an appeal, based upon the argument that the
Trial Court abused its discretion in sentencing Appellant, is frivolous.
Counsel has made a full and careful review of all matters in tI2 instant cause
Page - 19 - of 23
SIOZ-£Z-II
and cannot find any reasonable point of error to legitimately raise for purposes of
appeal. As a result, Counsel has filed the instant Anders Brief.Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 1967.
Page - 20 - of 23
SIOZ-£Z-II
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Counsel prays the Court accept
the instant Anders Brief, grant Counsel's Motion to Withdraw, and allow Appellant
a reasonable amount of time to file a Pro Se Brief.
Page - 21 - of 23
SIOZ-£Z-II
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I, Colin D. McFall, Attorney of Record for the above styled Appellant,
pursuant to Rule 9.4(i(3), Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, hereby certify the
number of words within Appellant's Brief at two thousand seven hundred thirty
(2,730).
Page - 22 - of 23
SIOZ-£Z-II
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Colin D. McFall, Appellate Attorney of Record for the above styled
Appellant, hereby certify service of a true and correct copy of the above and
foregoing document, with an explanation that he is entitled,to review the record,
and, if he so feels fit, to file a Pro Se Brief on his own behalf at Hutchins Unit,
1500 East Langdon Road, Dallas, Texas 75241,by first class mail, on the 23rd day
of November 2014.
Counsel also certifies service of a true and correct copy of the above and
foregoing document upon Scott Holden, First Assistant, Anderson County Criminal
District Attorney, by email delivery, to sholden@co.anderson.tx.us, on the 23rd day
of November 2015.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Anderson County Courthouse
500 North Church Street, Suite 38
OLIN D. CFALL Palestine, Texas 75801
Assistant Criminal District Attorney Telephone: 903-723-7400
Texas Bar Number: 24027498 Facsimile: 903-723-7818
Page - 23 - of 23