Devante Montreal Veasey v. State ( 2020 )

NO. 12-19-00046-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
DEVANTE MONTREAL VEASEY, § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Devante Montreal Veasey appeals the trial court’s judgment adjudicating him guilty of
burglary of a habitation. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. C. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137
(Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with burglary of a habitation. 1 Pursuant to a plea
agreement with the State, he pleaded “guilty,” and the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and
placed him on community supervision for a term of five years. Subsequently, the State filed a
motion to adjudicate guilt alleging that Appellant violated his community supervision conditions
by committing two new offenses, failing to report to his supervision officer within forty-eight
hours of contact with law enforcement and release from jail, and failing to pay his supervision fee
for fifteen months.
At a hearing on the matter, Appellant stipulated to evidence of the offense and pleaded
1
A second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a)(1), (c)(2) (West 2019).
“true” to the allegations in the motion to adjudicate. Appellant testified and admitted to driving
without a driver’s license and failing to appear in court on the matter because he lost the citation
and did not know where to go. He said that he failed to report to his supervision officer within
forty-eight hours of contact with law enforcement and release from jail because he thought his bail
bondsman would contact his supervision officer. Appellant further told the court that if it allowed
him to remain on community supervision, he would use his income tax refund to pay his
supervision fees. The trial court found the allegations true, found Appellant guilty, and assessed
his punishment at imprisonment for six years. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel relates that he has reviewed the record and found no reversible error or
jurisdictional defects. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App.
[Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating
why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 2
We have considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the
record. Id. at 811. We have found no reversible error.
CONCLUSION
As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991),
Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the
merits. Having done so, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy
of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for
2
In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified
Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took
concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief
has been filed.
2
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should
Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either
retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a pro se
petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty
days from either the date of this opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was
overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must
be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for
discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered April 22, 2020.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
3
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
APRIL 22, 2020
NO. 12-19-00046-CR
DEVANTE MONTREAL VEASEY,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 114th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1570-13)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.