Ex Parte Shane A. Hill

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 7, 2005
• Docket: 07-05-00119-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 07-05-0119-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

APRIL 7, 2005

______________________________

Ex parte SHANE A. HILL,

Appellant

_________________________________

FROM THE 154^TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMB COUNTY;

NO. 16,538; HON. FELIX KLEIN, PRESIDING _______________________________

Order of Dismissal _______________________________

Before QUINN, REAVIS, and CAMPBELL, JJ.

Shane A. Hill appeals from an order dismissing his application for writ of habeas corpus. The writ was sought to obtain release from the purported restraint of Bruce Peel, mayor of Littlefield, Texas. Peel had moved for dismissal, contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the proceedings. The trial court granted the motion. We now dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

One may not appeal from an order denying a writ of habeas corpus unless the order arose after a hearing on the merits and the trial court denied the application on the merits. Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Next, granting a motion to dismiss due to the absence of jurisdiction is not a ruling on the merits. See Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000); see also City of Lubbock v. Rule, 68 S.W.3d 853, 857 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2002, no pet.). So because the trial court dismissed the appeal due to the lack of jurisdiction, we ourselves have no jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Brian Quinn

Justice

Do not publish.

Jc m:val="centerGroup"/>

NO. 07-09-00310-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JUNE 17, 2010

TOM MONROE SCOTT, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

 FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. A15059-0308; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID JR., JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain appellant, Tom Monroe Scott, entered a guilty plea to the offense of possession of child pornography on November 24, 2003.  As part of the plea bargain, appellant was sentenced to ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (ID-TDCJ) with the confinement suspended.  Appellant was placed on community supervision probation for a period of ten years and a fine of $5000 was assessed against him, to be paid in monthly installments during the term of the community supervision.  On July 17, 2009, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision.  The motion alleged that appellant had failed to report as directed, failed to pay his fine, court costs, and attorney fees as directed, failed to pay his community supervision fees as directed, failed to complete his community service hours as directed, failed to refrain from the use of the internet at his residence, failed to pay his monthly sexual assault program fees, and failed to refrain from the possession of a desktop or laptop computer.  Appellant entered a plea of not true to the allegations and on August 27, 2009, the trial court conducted a hearing on the State’s motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision.  After hearing the evidence, the trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision and sentenced appellant to serve the original term of ten years in the ID-TDCJ.  It is from this judgment that appellant appeals.  We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Appellant=s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Id. at 744-45.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court=s judgment.  Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response.  Appellant has not filed a response.

By his Anders brief, counsel raised a ground that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.  We have reviewed this ground and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court=s judgment is affirmed.[1]

                                                                                                Mackey K. Hancock

---

[1] Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.  See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4.