Terrell Dewayne Dopson v. State ( 2018 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-18-00027-CR
TERRELL DEWAYNE DOPSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 4th District Court
Rusk County, Texas
Trial Court No. CR17-110
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Terrell Dewayne Dopson pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon1
pursuant to a plea agreement. In accordance with the sentencing recommendations included in the
plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Dopson on September 25, 2017, to ten years’
incarceration, suspended that sentence, and placed Dopson on ten years’ community supervision.
Subsequently, on October 18, 2017, the State moved to revoke Dopson’s community supervision,
alleging that Dopson had committed a single violation of the conditions of his community
supervision. Following a bench trial, the trial court revoked Dopson’s community supervision,
and following the presentation of punishment evidence, the trial court sentenced Dopson to eight
years’ incarceration.2 Dopson appeals.
Dopson’s appellate attorney filed a brief setting out the procedural history of the case,
summarizing the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings, and concluding
that the appellate record presents no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. Meeting the
requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no plausible appellate issues to be advanced. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. art. 46.04(a) (West 2011).
2
In our cause number 06-18-00028-CR, Dopson appeals the revocation of his community supervision following his
conviction for possession of a controlled substance.
2
v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion
with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
Counsel forwarded copies of his brief and motion to withdraw to Dopson and informed
him of his rights to review the appellate record and to file a pro se response to counsel’s brief,
should he so desire. Additionally, counsel provided Dopson with a complete copy of the appellate
record in this matter. On June 8, 2018, this Court advised Dopson that his pro se response was
due on or before July 9, 2018. When Dopson did not file a pro se response, we further advised
him on July 13, 2018, that the case was set for submission on August 3, 2018. We received neither
a pro se response from Dopson nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such
a response.
However, in Anders cases, appellate courts “have the authority to reform judgments and
affirm as modified in cases where there is non reversible error.” Ferguson v. State, 435 S.W.3d
291, 294 (Tex. App.—Waco 2014, pet. struck) (comprehensively discussing appellate cases that
have modified judgments in Anders cases). We note that the judgment revoking Dopson’s
community supervision erroneously indicates that Dopson pled “not true” to the revocation
allegations. The judgment further erroneously indicates that Dopson violated “Terms 15 and 20”
of the terms of his community supervision. We, therefore, modify the judgment (1) to indicate
that Dopson pled “true” to the single revocation allegation and (2) to indicate that Dopson violated
“Term 15” of the terms and conditions of his community supervision.
We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have
determined that no reversible error exists. Accordingly, we modify the judgment as indicated.
3
As modified, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.3
Ralph K. Burgess
Justice
Date Submitted: August 3, 2018
Date Decided: August 8, 2018
Do Not Publish
3
Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request
to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel
will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals,
he 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 (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion
or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must
be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with
the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
4