Stacie Ann Kenemore v. State ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-15-00052-CR
No. 07-15-00053-CR
________________________
STACIE ANN KENEMORE, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 108th District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 66,764-E & 66,765-E; Honorable Douglas R. Woodburn, Presiding
August 7, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
In 2013, in exchange for a plea of guilty, Appellant, Stacie Ann Kenemore, was
convicted of theft over $1,500 and under $20,000, a state jail felony,1 in cause numbers
66,764-E and 66,765-E. She was sentenced to two years confinement, suspended in
favor of community supervision for five years. In cause number 66,764-E, she was
1
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(4) (West Supp. 2014).
assessed a $1,000 fine and ordered to pay $4,000 in restitution. In March 2014, the
State moved to revoke Appellant’s community supervision for violations of the terms
and conditions thereof. At a hearing on the State’s motion, Appellant pleaded true to
some but not all of the State’s allegations. The State presented evidence of Appellant’s
violations and the trial court revoked her community supervision and assessed
punishment at two years confinement in a state jail facility, with the sentences to run
concurrently. The court also reassessed the $1,000 fine and $4,000 in restitution in
cause number 66,764-E. In presenting this appeal,2 counsel has filed an Anders3 brief
in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a
conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no
potentially plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the
controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. See High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated he has complied
with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief
to Appellant, (2) notifying her of her right to review the record and file a pro se response
if she desired to do so,4 and (3) informing her of her right to file a pro se petition for
2
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Appellant an out-of-time appeal in each case. Ex
parte Kenemore, Nos. WR-82,627-01 & WR-82,627-02, 2015 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 67 (Tex.
Crim. App. Jan. 28, 2015).
3
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
4
See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (regarding Appellant’s right of
access to the record for the purpose of filing a pro se response).
2
discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408.5 By letter, this court granted
Appellant an opportunity to exercise her right to file a response to counsel’s brief.
Appellant did not file a response. Neither did the State favor us with a brief.
By the Anders brief, counsel evaluates the underlying proceedings and candidly
concedes that reversible error is not presented. We agree with counsel.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing an order revoking community supervision, the sole question
before this court is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Rickels v. State, 202
S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1984); Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). In a
revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
the probationer violated a condition of community supervision as alleged in the motion
to revoke. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). When more
than one violation of the conditions of community supervision is alleged, a single
violation is adequate and the revocation order shall be affirmed if at least one sufficient
ground supports the court’s order. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1980); Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 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. Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 494. In
5
Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must
comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within
five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together
with notification of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
at 408 n.22 & 411 n.35. The duty to send the client a copy of this court’s decision is ministerial in nature,
does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to
withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33.
3
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). Additionally, a plea of true standing alone is
sufficient to support a trial court’s revocation order. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469,
470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).
ANALYSIS
Appellant’s community supervision officer testified that after Appellant was
processed for her period of community supervision in August 2013, she never reported
to the Community Supervision Department as required. Her community supervision
officer had difficulty locating her at the address provided and, except for voicemails, was
unable to contact her by telephone. Appellant failed to report an arrest for criminal
trespass and failed to comply with financial obligations required by the terms of her
community supervision.
Appellant testified she failed to report the first month because she was sick but
had left a message with her community supervision officer. Her excuse for not reporting
thereafter was that she was having domestic problems and was trying to find a new
home and employment. Although she admitted receiving some mail at her apartment,
she denied receiving a letter from the Department regarding her failure to report. She
asked the trial court to reinstate her community supervision. Based on her pleas of true
to some of the State’s allegations and the evidence presented, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant’s community supervision.
4
We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there
are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at
409; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no
such issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After
reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel that there is no
plausible basis for reversal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005).
Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed and counsel's motion to
withdraw is granted.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
Do not publish.
5