Jaworski DeWayne King v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 12, 2023
• Docket: 09-21-00357-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00356-CR NO. 09-21-00357-CR __________________

JAWORSKI DEWAYNE KING, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 17-28350, 18-28645 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jaworski DeWayne King appealed his convictions for (1) evading

arrest or detention with a prior conviction and (2) burglarizing a

habitation while intending to commit aggravated assault. 1 After King

1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 30.02 (first degree felony), 38.04 (third

degree felony). 1 appealed his convictions, the attorney the trial court appointed to

represent him filed Anders briefs in both of his appeals. 2

In the briefs, King’s attorney provides his professional evaluation

of the appellate record relevant to the appeals. After evaluating the

appellate record, King’s attorney filed a brief, and he concludes that

despite his diligent search of the appellate record, he has found no

reversible error by the trial court and no arguable grounds on which to

base an appellate argument to seek the reversal of judgments in Trial

Court Cause Number 17-28350 or Cause Number 18-28645. 3 King’s

attorney also explained that he sent King a copy of the briefs he filed for

King in his appeals, and that he informed King he had the right to review

the appellate record and file pro se responses in which he could raise any

ground of error or complaint he wished to raise in the appeals.

King filed identical four-page letters as his response in both the

appeals. In the letter, King complains: (1) there were contradictory

statements made by witnesses during the consolidated hearing the trial

2See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 3See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

2 court conducted in deciding to revoke the court’s earlier decision to place

him on probation in Trial Court Cause Numbers 17-28350 and 18-28645;

(2) the decision to revoke his probation was made solely based on an

alleged violation; (3) evidence that should have been excluded under the

Rules of Evidence and the Code of Criminal Procedure was introduced

during the hearing the trial court conducted to revoke its decision placing

him on probation and adjudicate his guilt; (4) the prosecutor made

objectionable and prejudicial comments during the hearing; (5) one of the

State’s witnesses gave testimony that according to King contradicted

earlier testimony, which allowed that witness to leave the trial court with

the impression that King was not a good candidate for the court to allow

to stay on probation; (6) the trial court refused to grant King’s request

asking the trial court to allow his attorney to withdraw; and (7) he argues

he received ineffective assistance because he was not given enough time

to review the evidence and questions he wanted to raise with the trial

court.

First, the record does not support King’s claim that he asked the

trial court to allow his attorney to withdraw. Instead, King’s attorney

3 filed a motion to withdraw the day of the hearing, but she told the trial

court at the beginning of the hearing that she was ready to proceed on

the motions to revoke. Turning next to King’s claim of ineffective

assistance, the clerk’s record does not show that any post-judgment

motions were filed to overturn either judgment. Generally, a record

before an appellate court in a defendant’s direct appeal of his conviction

is not sufficiently developed to allow the appellate court to address claims

asserting that the appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel.4

In King’s case, the attorney assigned to represent King in the revocation

hearing has never been given the opportunity to respond to the matters

King raises in his pro se response. Consequently, his complaints about

the representation he received in the hearing on the motion to revoke his

probation cannot be resolved on the record before us in these appeals. 5

As to King’s remaining complaints, the Court of Criminal Appeals

has explained that when faced with an Anders brief, appellate courts

4Mata v. State, 226 S.W.3d 425, 430 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 5See Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390, 392 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

(requiring the record to be developed in a manner affirmatively demonstrating that the claim has merit in cases involving ineffective assistance claims). 4 need not address the merits of the issues a defendant raises in his pro se

response. 6 Instead, the appellate court may determine either “that the

appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has

reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[,]” or (2) “that arguable

grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that

new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” 7 Id.

We have independently examined the clerk’s record and the

reporter’s record, and we conclude no arguable error supporting reversing

either of the trial court’s judgments exists on the record before us in

King’s appeals. 8 See id. We further conclude that based on the record,

King’s appeals are frivolous. 9 Therefore, it is also unnecessary to order

the appointment of new counsel to re-brief King’s appeals. 10 Given our

conclusion that no arguable error exists to support the appeals, the trial

6Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 7Id. 8Id. 9See Anders, 386 U.S. at 743. 10Cf.Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring the court of appeals to appoint other counsel only if it determines that there were arguable grounds for the appeal). 5 court’s judgments in Trial Court Cause Numbers 17-28350 and 18-28645

are affirmed. 11

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on November 4, 2022 Opinion Delivered July 12, 2023 Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

11King may challenge our decision in these appeals by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 6