Dustin Ledale Dodson v. State ( 2020 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-19-00512-CR
Dustin Ledale Dodson, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
NO. 77868, THE HONORABLE PAUL L. LEPAK, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dustin Ledale Dodson was charged with violating a protective order by assaulting
Robin Denise Britt-Dodson. See Tex. Penal Code § 25.07(g). Dodson agreed to plead guilty per
the terms of a plea-bargain agreement. Consistent with the terms of that agreement, the district
court deferred Dodson’s adjudication of guilt after accepting his guilty plea and placed him on
community supervision for six years.
About three months later, the State filed a motion to revoke Dodson’s community
supervision and adjudicate his guilt alleging that he violated the conditions of his community
supervision by testing positive for marijuana; by failing “to participate and cooperate in . . .
assessment, classification, and habilitation/rehabilitation programs”; by failing “to participate in
and successfully complete the Life Skills program”; by sending “explicit photos of his genitals”
to the victim; and by failing to pay various court costs and fees. During a hearing on the motion,
Dodson entered pleas of true to the State’s allegations. At the end of the hearing, the district
court revoked Dodson’s community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and sentenced him to ten
years’ imprisonment. See id. §§ 12.34, 25.07(g).
Several months later, Dodson filed a motion requesting that the district court
suspend the execution of his sentence and place him on shock probation. See Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. art. 42A.202. After reviewing the motion and considering the parties’ arguments, the district
court agreed to suspend Dodson’s sentence and place him on community supervision for ten
years. A few months later, the State filed a motion to revoke Dodson’s shock probation alleging
that Dodson violated the terms of his community supervision by using “Ecstasy (MDMA)” and
marijuana, by attempting to use “a device designed to falsify” a drug test “during an attempt to
obtain a urine sample for testing,” by failing to pay various court costs and fees, and by sending
text messages to the victim that were sexual in nature. During a hearing on the motion, Dodson
entered pleas of true to the State’s allegations. The district court rendered its judgment revoking
Dodson’s shock probation and sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment. Dodson appeals the
district court’s judgment.
Dodson’s court-appointed attorney on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw
supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief
meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the
record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. 738,
744-45 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson
v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988) (explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the
court in determining both that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case
and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”). Dodson’s counsel has represented to the Court that she
provided copies of the motion and brief to Dodson; advised Dodson of his right to examine the
2
appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of
the appeal in this Court; and provided Dodson with a form motion for pro se access to the
appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313,
319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Dodson has not requested a copy of the appellate record or filed
a pro se brief, and the time permitted to file a brief has expired.
We have independently reviewed the record and have found nothing that might
arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree
with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw and affirm the district court’s judgment of conviction.
__________________________________________
Thomas J. Baker, Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana
Affirmed
Filed: February 6, 2020
Do Not Publish
3