Deborah Alford v. State

Opinion

ACCEPTED 13-14-00676-CR THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 3/12/2015 3:53:30 PM DORIAN RAMIREZ CLERK

FILED IN 13th COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS NO. 13-14-00676-CR 3/12/2015 3:53:30 PM ______________________________________________________ DORIAN E. RAMIREZ Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT AT CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS ______________________________________________________ DEBORAH ALFORD, Appellant VS THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ______________________________________________________ AN APPEAL FROM THE 94TH DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS ______________________________________________________

APPELLANT’S ANDERS BRIEF ________________________________________________________

PAUL DODSON TX BAR #05942000 218 LEMING AVE. CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 78404 TEL: 361.364.7415 FAX: 361.237.1963 PAUL@PAULDODSON.NET

ATTORNEY FOR DEBORAH ALFORD NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PARTIES

APPELLANT: Deborah Alford SID# 03731988 TDCJ # 01964870 Marlin Transfer Facility 2893 State Hwy 6 Marlin, TX 76661-6588

TRIAL COUNSEL: Hon. Deeanne Galvan (initial plea) 901 Leopard Corpus Christi, Tx 78401

Tanya R. Garza (revocation) 302 Rosebud Corpus Christi, Texas 78404

APPELLATE COUNSEL: Paul Dodson 218 Leming Ave. Corpus Christi, Tx 78404 paul@pauldodson.net

APPELLEE: The State of Texas TRIAL COUNSEL: Hon. Mark Skurka Nueces County District Attorney ADA Lance Watt (plea) ADA Young Min C. Burkett (revoca- tion) 901 Leopard Corpus Christi, Tx 78401

APPELLATE COUNSEL: Hon. Mark Skurka Nueces County District Attorney 901 Leopard Corpus Christi, Tx 78401

i REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellant does NOT request oral argument at the time of sub-

mission.

NOTE ON THE RECORD

Record item Citation in brief

Clerk’s Record C.R.

Supplemental Clerk’s Record Suppl. C.R.

Reporter’s Record (Revocation hearing on Novem- R.R. ber 3, 2014)

Supplemental Reporter’s Record (Plea hearing sep- Suppl. R.R. tember 6, 2006)

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PARTIES ................................................ i

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ................................................................. ii

NOTE ON THE RECORD ..................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ iii

LIST OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................... iv

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................................................................. vi

ISSUE ..........................................................................................................................vii

Is there a colorable issue to raise in this appeal? .......................................... vii

STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................... 7

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 2

ARGUMENT............................................................................................................... 2

Standard for Anders brief .....................................................................................2

Potential issue: charging instruments ................................................................3

Potential issue: pretrial motions .........................................................................4

Potential issue: guilty plea procedures...............................................................4

Potential issue: mental competence ...................................................................6

Potential issue: proof of charges ........................................................................6

Initial possession conviction .......................................................................6

Revocation .....................................................................................................6

Potential issue: punishment ................................................................................8

Potential issue: effective representation ......................................................... 10

Potential issue: fundamental error .................................................................. 11

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ..........................................................................................12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..............................................................................13

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................13

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................. 2

iii LIST OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). ...............................................................2 Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991)......................................................... 11 Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) ....................................... 11 Carter v. State, 656 S.W.2d 468 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) .................................... 11 Cobb v. State , 851 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) .......................................6 Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (op. on reh’g) ..........6 Few v. State, 588 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)...........................................3 Furr v. State, 13-14-0008-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 527 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).............................7 Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) ................................................................ 8, 9 Herrera v. State, 951 S.W.2d 197 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997, no pet.) .........................................................................................................................7 In re Shulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Civ. App. 2008) (original proceeding) ............................................................................................................3 Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. ref’d)..............3 Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) ........................................7 Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)...............................7 McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) ..................................................3 McNew v. State, 608 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) ....................................9 Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (panel op.) ..................7 Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) ..............................................7 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988)..........................................................................2 Salinas v. State, 163 S.W.3d 734 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ................................... 10 Samuel v. State, 477 S.W.2d 611 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) .....................................9 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) .................................................... 10 Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) ................................ 10

iv Trevino v. State, 519 S.W.2d 864, 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) ...........................6 Vela v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 7281, 2014 WL 3049482 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2014, no pet.) (memo. op) ..........................................9 Wester v. State, 542 S.W.2d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) ......................................6

Statutes

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 21.03 ..........................................................................3 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.13 ................................................................. 4, 5, 6 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.002 ..............................................................4 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.102 ..............................................................4 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.112 ......................................................... 3, 8 TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.35 ........................................................................................8

Other Authorities

Schmolesky, TEX. CRIM. PRAC. GUIDE § 90.08 ................................................... 11

v NO. 13-14-00676-CR ______________________________________________________ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT AT CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS ______________________________________________________ DEBORAH ALFORD, Appellant VS THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ______________________________________________________ AN APPEAL FROM THE 94TH DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS ______________________________________________________

APPELLANT’S ANDERS BRIEF ________________________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Counsel for Appellant Deborah Alford files this Anders brief in

these consolidated appeals.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

NATURE OF THE CASE Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine in Cause # 06-CR-2619-C. She was placed on community supervision, which was revoked in 2014 when she pled true to a mo- tion to revoke her probation.

TRIAL JUDGE Hon. Bobby Galvan

TRIAL COURT/COUNTY 94th District Court, Nueces County

vi DISPOSITION IN THE The trial court revoked Defendant’s commu- TRIAL COURT nity supervision in the possession case, and adjudicated guilt on a robbery charge. De- fendant was sentenced to two years in the state jail on the possession conviction and three years’ imprisonment on the robbery conviction.

Defendant appealed the possession case and the robbery case (13-15-00681).

ISSUE

Is there a colorable issue to raise in this appeal?

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In 2006, Alford pled guilty to delivery of cocaine. She was sen-

tenced to two years of state jail time, with her sentence probated for

three years. C.R. 37. Her community service on this charge was extended

five times:

Date of order New termination date Record reference 4/10/08 9/6/11 C.R. 61, 63 7/14/11 9/6/12 C.R. 93 12/7/11 9/6/13 C.R. 107 8/14/13 9/6/14 C.R. 110 8/20/14 9/6/15 Suppl. C.R. 5

vii In October 2014, the State moved the trial court to revoke her

community service. C.R. 124. At the hearing, the State asked the trial

court to sentence Alford to two years in state jail on the possession

charge and three years’ imprisonment on another charge. R.R. 8. Al-

ford’s counsel requested reinstatement of probation on both charges.

R.R. 8-9. The trial court followed the State’s recommendations on revo-

cation and sentencing. R.R. 10.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

An appeal in this case would be frivolous as there are no colorable

issues to raise.

ARGUMENT

Issue restated: Is there a colorable issue to raise in this appeal?

Standard for Anders brief. The attorney’s role as an advocate

requires that counsel support a client’s appeal to the best of his or her

ability. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A defendant's right to

assistance of counsel, however, does not included the right to have an

attorney urge frivolous or unmeritorious claims on appeal. Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83-84 (1988). An attorney may not properly make

2 frivolous arguments to a court. McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429,

436 (1988); In re Shulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 fn 8 (Tex. Crim. App.

2008) (original proceeding). The purpose of an Anders brief is to ensure

that counsel has carefully reviewed the trial record and thoroughly re-

searched the law before deciding that the appeal is frivolous. Id, at 439.

Counsel must resolve all doubts and ambiguous legal questions in favor

of his or her client and file an Anders brief only if there are no argu-

ments that could conceivably persuade the court. Id. , at 444; Johnson v.

State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. ref’d)

Potential issue: charging instruments. An indictment should

allege all that the State is required to prove. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

art. 21.03. An indictment drafted in the language of the statute defining

an offense is ordinarily sufficient. Few v. State, 588 S.W.2d 578, 583

(Tex. Crim. App. 1979).

Possession of controlled substance. Pursuant to TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE § 481.112(a), except as authorized, “a person commits an

offense if the person knowingly manufactures, delivers, or possesses

with intent to deliver a controlled substance listed in Penalty Group 1.”

“Controlled substance” means “a substance, including a drug, an adul-

terant, and a dilutant, listed in … Penalty Groups 1, 1-A, or 2 through

3 4. The term includes the aggregate weight of any mixture, solution, or

other substance containing a controlled substance.” TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE § 481.002(5). “Penalty Group 1” includes cocaine. Id.,

§ 481.102(3)(D). “Deliver” means “to transfer, actually or constructive-

ly, to another a controlled substance…. The term includes offering to

sell a controlled substance, counterfeit substance, or drug parapherna-

lia.” TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.002(8).

The possession indictment alleges that Alford

on or about MARCH 11, 2006, in Nueces County, Texas, did then and there knowingly and intentionally make an actual transfer or a constructive transfer of COCAINE, a controlled substance listed in Penalty Group 1 of the Texas Controlled Substances Act, to TODD BEACH, and that the amount transferred was, by aggregat- ed weight, including any adulterants or dilutants, less than one gram….

Because this indictment tracks the statutory language, the charging instrument

is legally sufficient.

Potential issue: pretrial motions. No pretrial motions were filed

on behalf of Alford in this case.

Potential issue: guilty plea procedures. A judge accepting a

plea of guilty or no contest is required to provide certain statutory ad-

monishments. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.13(a). A judge may do so

4 orally or in writing. If in writing, there must be a statement signed by

the defendant and his attorney that he understands the admonishments

and is aware of the consequences of his plea. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

art. 26.13(d). Substantial compliance is sufficient, in the absence of an

affirmative showing by the defendant that he was not aware of the con-

sequences of his plea and that he was mislead or harmed by the admon-

ishment of the court. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.13(c).

The record shows substantial compliance with the admonish-

ment requirements in all three cases:

(1) range of punishment C.R. 15 R.R. 7 (2) recommendation of the prosecuting C.R. 12 attorney as to punishment is not binding on the court (3) in plea agreement, the trial court must C.R. 14, 19, 20, 27 give its permission before the defendant may prosecute an appeal on any matter in the case except for those matters raised by written motions filed prior to trial (4) consequences of non-citizenship Defendant is a U.S. citi- zen. C.R. 19

(5) sex offender registration requirements Not in issue.

5 Potential issue: mental competence. A guilty plea may not be

accepted unless the defendant is mentally competent and the plea is free

and voluntary. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.13(b). Alford and her

counsel indicated that Alford was competent and had freely made his

plea. CR 18, 21, Suppl. R.R. 4-5; R.R. 5-6.

Potential issue: proof of charges. There was no error in the

proof of the charges against Alford.

Initial possession conviction. The defendant’s judicial confession

admitting all elements of the offense is sufficient evidence to support a

conviction. Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343, 353 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)

(op. on reh’g); Trevino v. State, 519 S.W.2d 864, 866 (Tex. Crim. App.

1975). Alford judicially confessed to this charge. C.R. 28. The police re-

ports introduced, without objection, also supported the charge. C.R. 31

et seq., Suppl. R.R. 6.

Revocation. Whether to revoke community supervision rests

within the discretion of the trial court. Wester v. State, 542 S.W.2d 403,

405 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). The burden of proof in a probation revo-

cation is measured by a preponderance of the evidence. Cobb v. State,

851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Appellate review of evi-

6 dence presented at a revocation hearing is in the light most favorable to

the trial court's decision. Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1979).

In its motion to revoke probation, the State’s allegations included

Alford’s submission of positive urine analysis for cocaine. C.R. (rob-

bery) 94. She pled true to at least one violation, including the positive

urine tests. C.R. 116; R.R. 7. In reviewing a probation revocation, a sin-

gle violation of probation is sufficient to support the trial court's deci-

sion to revoke. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App.

1980) (panel op.); Solis v. State, 13-14-0008-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS

527, *1 fn 1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op.);

Herrera v. State, 951 S.W.2d 197, 199 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997,

no pet.).

Limited review. An appellant may not appeal matters relating to

the original plea proceeding after his community supervision has been

revoked and an adjudication of guilt formally made. Manuel v. State,

994 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The two limited excep-

tions to this principle are the “void judgment” exception and the “ha-

beas corpus” exception. Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664, 667 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2001). Neither exception applies here.

7 Potential issue: punishment. The trial court imposed punish-

ment in accord with statutory requirements.

• Alford was sentenced to two years for possession. De- livery of a controlled substance in Penalty Group 1 is a state jail felony if the amount of the controlled sub- stance is, by aggregate weight, including adulterants or dilutants, less than one gram. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.112(b). In this case, an individual adjudged guilty of a state jail felony may be punished by confine- ment in a state jail for any term of not more than two years or less than 180 days. TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.35(a). • The trial court also fined her $1,500. C.R. (possession) 37. The revocation judgment, however, did not include a fine. C.R. 122.

The sentence is within the range of punishment for the charge.

The United States Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual

punishment.” U.S. CONST. amend. VIII. “Embodied in the Constitu-

tion’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments is the ‘precept of justice

that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to

[the] offense.’” Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 59 (2010). Proportionality

contests include challenges to the length of term-of-years sentences

given circumstances in a particular case. Id. In these challenges, courts

analyze the claim with a threshold comparison of the gravity of the of-

fense and severity of the sentence. Only in the “rare case,” where the

8 threshold comparison suggests gross disproportionality will the courts

then compare the defendant’s sentence with the sentences received by

other offenders in the same jurisdiction and with the sentences imposed

for the same crime in other jurisdictions. Id.

In these appeals, Alford’s offenses allowed punishment in the

range imposed on her. When the punishment assessed is within the

range of punishment established by the legislature, there is no violation

of the constitutional provisions against cruel and unusual punishment.

McNew v. State, 608 S.W.2d 166, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Samuel v.

State, 477 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). The judgments ad-

judicating guilt reflect the same sentence that the court imposed at the

hearings. R.R. 7; C.R. 37, R.R. 10; C.R. 122.

There is no evidence from the record to suggest the 534 days

credited on the possession charge were improperly applied. The trial

court allowed the sentences in the two cases to be served concurrently.

There is no indication of disproportionality between the length sen-

tence and the severity of the offenses. Vela v. State, 2014 Tex. App.

LEXIS 7281, 2014 WL 3049482 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2014, no

pet.) (memo. op).

9 Potential issue: effective representation. To show ineffective

assistance of trial counsel, an appellant must show by a preponderance

of the evidence that counsel's representation fell below the standard of

prevailing professional norms and that there is a reasonable probability

that, but for counsel's deficiency, the result of the trial would have been

different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984); Salinas v.

State, 163 S.W.3d 734, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Review of counsel's

representation is highly deferential, and there is a strong presumption

that counsel's conduct fell within a wide range of reasonable representa-

tion. Salinas, 163 S.W.3d at 740. A reviewing court will rarely be in a po-

sition on direct appeal to fairly evaluate the merits of an ineffective as-

sistance claim. Id. To overcome the presumption of reasonable profes-

sional assistance, “any allegation of ineffectiveness must be firmly

founded in the record, and the record must affirmatively demonstrate

the alleged ineffectiveness.” Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1999).

Alford was represented by counsel at every hearing. She indicated

she was satisfied with her representation at the hearings prior to her be-

ing placed on probation. C.R. 28 (SX-1). Ineffective assistance of coun-

sel is not demonstrated.

10 Potential issue: fundamental error. In rare situations, appellate

courts reverse convictions even when the error resulting in the reversal

was not properly preserved at trial. Carter v. State, 656 S.W.2d 468, 469–

470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983);. The doctrine of fundamental error is lim-

ited in Texas criminal practice to those federal constitutional errors la-

beled as “structural” by the United States Supreme Court. Cain v. State,

947 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), referencing Arizona v.

Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-310 (1991).

The district court had both subject matter jurisdiction (felonies

adjudicated in the district court), and geographic jurisdiction (offenses

committed in Nueces County). None of the types of fundamental error

that would undermine the fairness of the proceedings against Alford

appear in the record. Schmolesky, TEX. CRIM. PRAC. GUIDE § 90.08

[g][i].

11 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Deborah Alford’s appellate counsel, has dili-

gently reviewed the entire record and concludes there is no reversible

error, and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant the

pending motion to withdraw as counsel.

Respectfully submitted

_________________________ PAUL DODSON TX BAR #05942000 218 LEMING AVE. CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 78404 TEL: 361.364.7415 FAX: 361.237.1963 paul@pauldodson.net

12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

By affixing my signature below, I certify that a true copy of the foregoing document was delivered on March 12, 2015, to the following attorneys in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure:

Mr. Doug Norman Ms Deborah Alford Nueces County District At- SID# 03731988 torney Appellate Division TDCJ # 01964870 901 Leopard Marlin Transfer Facility Corpus Christi, Tx 78401 2893 State Hwy 6 Marlin, TX 76661-6588

_________________________ PAUL DODSON

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

The number of words in this document, excluding those provi- sions described in TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(1) is 1995. This figure is provid- ed in reliance on the word count of the computer program used to pre- pare this document.

13 NO. 13-14-00676-CR ______________________________________________________ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT AT CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS ______________________________________________________ DEBORAH ALFORD, Appellant VS THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ______________________________________________________ AN APPEAL FROM THE 94TH DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS ______________________________________________________

APPENDIX ________________________________________________________

Tab Document 1. Indictment 2. Judgment Revoking Community Supervision

2 I c._ •

{ (HI - (1 (-; ( J i i...j ·- l. 1 i i u -· / .2 0 .-:\ i !-· i ·; !< ; : • i i !- !·",( H< \i Ar< l t. :·"') J t1: 1 t H 1t1 - l .: . U 1 1 i\. ! H : U ;:-) / 2 :-: / i. - \)1 1:::,, \\ i \I .\i-\:\i./ I ir l ( ;-.J

fBI NO. DPS N-'.). D.O.B. 08-25-1957 DATE OF ARREST! ARRESTING AGENCY: BOND: J c / _'- By: (7 JL/, .

NC'. c:u-Cil- a 01 Cf- c_ THE STATE Of TEXAS VS. DEBGRAH ALFORD CHARGE: DELIVERY OF COCA NE PENALTY GROUP 1 LESS THAN ONE GRJ\M STATUTE: TEXAS CONTROLLED SUBST.l\NCES ACT SECTION 481.112 DEGREE',! STATE Jl\IL FELONY COURT: ...........

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

IN THE NAM! AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

The duly Gr3nd Jury of Nueces County, Texas, presents in the District of County, Texas, that DEBORAH ALFORD, defendant, on or about MARCH 11, .2006, in Nw:"ces County, Tex3s, did then and t hsre knowingly and int Ent ion ally rn2d:e an actual t:ransf er or a

1-uctj_ ve transfer of C'OCJ.\INE, a controlled sub.stance listed

in Penalty ::;rou:;::, 1 ·:Jf the Texas Cont rcllPd Sub:3tan('.e3 Act, to

TODD BE.Z\CH, and that thP arnc,unt transft:'rred was, by aggregated

including any eidul ti::, rants or di lutant s, less than one

..:..gram,

against the peace and digriity of the Stcite.

"'i:. •. ' ] !, ; lj - •;t II \ . ,·' L/ V ... .

INC SID J0067150 \'· \ I

·7·uy-o -) J 71{ If{\, \__1 l ., ALFORD D BORAH MAKlE DOK 0 6 7 l CJ 5 7 6 POSS W I f MAN/DEL PG FS 1: indictment CASE No. 06-CR-2619-C COUNT SINGLE INCIDENT No./TRN: 9089327592

THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE 94TH DISTRICT § v. § COURT § DEBORAH ALFORD § NUECES COUNTY, TExAs § STATE ID No.: TX03731988 §

JUDGMENT REVOKING COMMUNITY SUPERVISION Date Judgment Judge Presiding: HON. BOBBY GALVAN 111312014 Entered: Attorney for Attorney for State: YOUNG BURKETT TANYAGARZA Defendant: Date of Original Community Supervision Order: Statute for Offense: TEXAS CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT 91612006 SECTION 481.112 Offense for which Defendant Convicted: DELIVERY OF COCAINE Date of Offense: 3/1112006 Degree of Offense: Plea to Motion to Revoke: Findings on Deadly Weapon: STATE JAIL FELONY TRUE NIA Original Punishment Assessed: TWO (2) YEARS STATE JAIL DIVISION, TDCJ PROBATED THREE (3) YEARS FINE: $ NIA Shock Community Supervision: NIA FINE: $ NIA Date Sentence Imposed: 111312014 Date Sentence to Commence: 111312014 Punishment and Place TWO (2) YEARS STATE JAIL DIVISION, TDCJ of Confinement: THIS SENTENCE SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY with Cause No. 08-CR-3889-C of Nueces County, Texas. Fine: Court Costs: Restitution: Restitution Payable to: $NIA $ 2£ .... $NIA D VICTIM (see below) D AGENCY/AGENT (see below) IS ORIGINAL JUDGMENT I SENTENCE REFORMED? NO

D In accordance with Section 12.44(a) Penal Code, the Court finds that the ends of justice would best be served by punishment as a Class A misdemeanor. Defendant is adjudged to be guilty of a state jail felony and is assessed punishment indicated above. Sex Offender Registration Requirements do not apply to the Defendant. TEX. CODE CRIM. PRoc. chapter 62 The age of the victim at the time of the offense was NIA . If Defendant is to serve sentence in TDCJ. enter incarceration periods in chronological order. From to From to From to Time From to From to From to Credited: If Defendant is to serve sentence in county jail or is given credit toward fine and costs. enter days credited below. DAYS NOTES: All pertinent information, names and assessments indicated above are incorporated into the language of the judgment below by reference. This cause was called in Nueces County, Texas. The State appeared by her District Attorney. Counsel I Waiver of Counsel (select one) 12] Defendant appeared in person with Counsel. S CA N N E D D Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to representation by counsel in writing in open court. The State filed a motion to revoke Defendant's community supervision. After hearing the State's plea, the evidence submitted, and reviewing the record, the Court GRANTS the State's motion. The Court's record that'I>'etendant 122 CLERK PATSY PEREZ, DISTRICT 06-2619C REV .. doc Page 1 of2 NUECES COUNTY 2: Judgment Revoking Community Supervision was previously convicted of a felony offense and punishment was assessed as indicated above. The record indicates the Court ordered imposition of Defendant's sentence of confinement suspended and placed Defendant on community supervision for 3 YEARS. The Court FINDS Defendant has violated the conditions of community supervision as set out in the State's ORIGINAL Motion to Revoke Community Supervision as follows: SEE ATTACHED COPY OF MOTION TO REVOKE. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the previous orders in this cause suspending imposition of sentence of confinement and placing Defendant on community supervision REVOKED. (select one of the following) D The Court ORDERS Defendant punished in accordance with the judgment and sentence originally entered in this cause. 1:81 Finding it to be in the interest of justice, the Court ORDERS Defendant punished in accordance with the reformed judgment and sentence indicated above. Punishment Options (select one) 1:81 Confinement in Institutional Division. The Court ORDERS the authorized agent of the State of Texas or the Sheriff of this County to take, safely convey, and deliver Defendant to the Director, Institutional Division, TDCJ. The Court ORDERS Defendant to be confined for the period and in the manner indicated above. The Court ORDERS Defendant remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of this county until the Sheriff can obey the directions of this sentence. The Court ORDERS that upon release from confinement, Defendant proceed immediately to the Parole Division, TDCJ. Once there, the Court ORDERS Defendant to pay, or make arrangements to pay, any remaining unpaid fines, court costs, and restitution as ordered by the Court above. D County Jail-Confinement I Confinement in Lieu of Payment. The Court ORDERS Defendant immediately committed to the custody of the Sheriff of County, Texas on the date the sentence is to commence. Defendant shall be confined in the County Jail for the period indicated above. The Court ORDERS that upon release from confinement, Defendant shall proceed immediately to the . Once there, the Court ORDERS Defendant to pay, or make arrangements to pay, any remaining unpaid fines, court costs, and restitution as ordered by the Court above. D Fine Only Payment. The punishment assessed against Defendant is for a FINE ONLY. The Court ORDERS Defendant to proceed immediately to the Office of the County . Once there, the Court ORDERS Defendant to pay or make arrangements to pay all fines and court costs as ordered by the Court in this cause. The Court ORDERS Defendant's sentence EXECUTED. The Court ORDERS that Defendant is given credit noted above on this sentence for the time spent incarcerated. The Court further ORDERS Defendant to pay all fines, court costs, and restitution as indicated above.

Signed and entered on _ _ _ _ _

123 06-2619C REV __ doc Page 2 of2