William Tremaine Patterson v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Vacate and Remand in part; Affirmed as Modified in part; Affirmed in part; and Opinion
    Filed May 13, 2015
    S   In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-14-01024-CR
    No. 05-14-01025-CR
    No. 05-14-01026-CR
    No. 05-14-01027-CR
    WILLIAM TREMAINE PATTERSON, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court
    Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause Nos. F-12-71245-M, F-14-45181-M, F-14-45182-M, and F-14-45183-M
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Francis, Brown, and Stoddart
    Opinion by Justice Francis
    William Tremaine Patterson was charged by indictment with assault family violence.
    Under the agreement with the State, he pleaded guilty and, on January 2013, was placed on
    unadjudicated community supervision for five years and ordered to pay a fine of $1500. In April
    2014, appellant was indicted for three drug-related felonies: possession with intent to deliver
    cocaine, tampering with physical evidence, and possession with intent to deliver
    methamphetamine. The State moved to revoke his community supervision and adjudicate his
    guilt. Appellant pleaded true to violating the conditions of his probation. He pleaded guilty to
    the three drug-related charges, two of which were enhanced by a prior felony, and true to the
    assault family violence charge.    The trial court granted the State’s motions and sentenced
    appellant to (a) confinement for one year in state jail for possession with intent to deliver
    cocaine, and (b) fifteen years in prison for each of the three remaining charges. For the reasons
    that follow, we affirm one of the trial court’s judgments, affirm two other judgments as modified,
    and remand the fourth judgment for further proceedings.
    Appellant challenges the legality of his sentence for the assault family violence offense.
    He contends the offense was a third-degree felony, the range of punishment for which is two to
    ten years in prison and optional fine. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.34(a) (West 2011). The
    State agrees that appellant was convicted of a third-degree felony. The trial court, however,
    imposed a sentence of fifteen years. “A sentence that is outside the maximum or minimum range
    of punishment is unauthorized by law and therefore illegal.” Mizell v. State, 
    119 S.W.3d 804
    ,
    806 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The appropriate remedy for an illegal sentence is to vacate that
    sentence and remand the case for a new punishment hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.
    art. 44.29(b) (West Supp. 2014). The State agrees with imposing that remedy in this case. We
    vacate the punishment imposed in appellant’s assault family violence judgment, and we remand
    case number 05-14-01024-CR (trial court number F-12-71245-M) to the trial court for a new
    punishment hearing.
    Appellant’s attorney filed a brief in the remaining three cases in which she concludes the
    appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the records
    showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 811–812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to
    appellant. Although we advised appellant of his right to file a pro se brief, he did not do so. See
    –2–
    Kelly v. State, 
    436 S.W.3d 313
    , 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate
    courts and counsel in Anders cases).
    We have reviewed the record and counsel’s briefs. See Bledsoe v. State, 
    178 S.W.3d 824
    ,
    826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree
    the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably
    support the appeals.
    Although not an arguable issue, we note the judgments in case numbers 05-14-01025-CR
    (trial court number F-14-45181-M) and 05-14-01027-CR (trial court number F-14-45183-M) do
    not reflect appellant’s pleas or the trial court’s findings on enhancement paragraphs alleged by
    the State. The record indicates one enhancement paragraph was pleaded in both indictments.
    The record also establishes that appellant pleaded true to the enhancements and the trial court
    found the enhancements true. Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment in both cases to
    reflect that appellant pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs and the trial court found the
    enhancements true.
    We modify the trial court’s judgments in case numbers 05-14-01025-CR and 05-14-
    01027-CR and affirm those judgments as modified. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in case
    number 05-14-01026-CR.
    Do Not Publish
    TEX. R. APP. P. 47
    141024F.U05
    /Molly Francis/
    MOLLY FRANCIS
    JUSTICE
    –3–
    S
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    WILLIAM TREMAINE PATTERSON,                        On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District
    Appellant                                          Court, Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. F-12-71245-M.
    No. 05-14-01024-CR        V.                       Opinion delivered by Justice Francis.
    Justices Brown and Stoddart participating.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we VACATE the sentence imposed in the trial
    court’s judgment, and the cause is REMANDED for a new punishment hearing.
    Judgment entered May 13, 2015.
    –4–
    S
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    WILLIAM TREMAINE PATTERSON,                         On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District
    Appellant                                           Court, Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. F-14-45181-M.
    No. 05-14-01025-CR         V.                       Opinion delivered by Justice Francis.
    Justices Brown and Stoddart participating.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED
    as follows:
    Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph:           TRUE
    Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph:       TRUE
    As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
    Judgment entered May 13, 2015.
    –5–
    S
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    WILLIAM TREMAINE PATTERSON,                       On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District
    Appellant                                         Court, Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. F-14-45182-M.
    No. 05-14-01026-CR       V.                       Opinion delivered by Justice Francis.
    Justices Brown and Stoddart participating.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
    Judgment entered May 13, 2015.
    –6–
    S
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    WILLIAM TREMAINE PATTERSON,                         On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District
    Appellant                                           Court, Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. F-14-45183-M.
    No. 05-14-01027-CR         V.                       Opinion delivered by Justice Francis.
    Justices Brown and Stoddart participating.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED
    as follows:
    Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph:            TRUE
    Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph:        TRUE
    As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
    Judgment entered May 13, 2015.
    –7–
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-14-01026-CR

Filed Date: 5/13/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/29/2016