Jeff Villarreal v. State
This text of Jeff Villarreal v. State (Jeff Villarreal v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.
Appellant, Jeff Villarreal, appeals from a judgment convicting him of attempted robbery and sentencing him to prison for five years. The clerk's record is due in this cause, and an extension of the applicable deadline was sought. To justify the extension, the district clerk represented that appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the record. However, it appears that appellant sought the appointment of counsel at one time due to his inability to employ same. If he is a pauper and unable to pay the fees and costs associated with an appeal, he also would be entitled to acquire a free appellate record.
Accordingly, we now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 140th District Court of Lubbock County (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following:
1. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal;
2. whether appellant is indigent; and,
3. whether the appellant is entitled to a free appellate record due to his indigency.
The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed. So too shall it 1) execute findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing issues, 2) cause to be developed a supplemental clerk's record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law and all orders it may issue as a result of its hearing on this matter, and 3) cause to be developed a reporter's record transcribing the evidence and arguments presented at the aforementioned hearing. Additionally, the district court shall then file the supplemental record with the clerk of this court on or before April 17, 2002. Should further time be needed by the trial court to perform these tasks, then same must be requested before April 17, 2002.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
160; Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 121ST DISTRICT COURT OF TERRY COUNTY;
NO. 5426; HON. KELLY G. MOORE, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., HANCOCK, J., and BOYD, S.J.
Appellant Brennen Young appeals from an order adjudicating him guilty of the offense of aggravated sexual assault. Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant pled guilty to the offense on June 21, 2006, and the trial court deferred the adjudication of his guilt and placed him on community supervision for ten years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to proceed with the adjudication of his guilt. Appellant pled not true to the alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision, and the trial court conducted a hearing on same. The court adjudicated his guilt and sentenced him to fifteen years in prison on September 11, 2007. The trial court granted appellant permission to appeal on September 12, 2007.
Appellant’s counsel has now moved to withdraw, after filing a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and representing that he has searched the record and found no arguable grounds for reversal. The motion and brief illustrate that appellant was informed of his right to review the appellate record and file his own brief. So too did we inform appellant that any pro se response or brief he cared to file had to be filed by April 21, 2008. On April 16, 2008, appellant filed a response wherein he requested counsel be appointed to assist him in his response. On April 17, 2008, we advised appellant that he was presently represented by counsel and that if this court determined new counsel should be required the case would be returned to the trial court for the appointment of new counsel. Furthermore, we advised appellant that his pro se response, if any, was due on May 8, 2008. To date, appellant has filed no pro se response or brief.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed two potential areas for appeal involving the adjudication and punishment hearing. However, after discussing the evidence adduced at the hearing, he found no reversible error had occurred. We have also conducted an independent review of the record to determine whether there existed reversible error and found none. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring us to conduct an independent review). Appellant admitted to various of the alleged violations of his community supervision during his testimony at the adjudication hearing. And, the punishment assessed was also within the range prescribed by law. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §12.32(a) (Vernon 2003).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jeff Villarreal v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeff-villarreal-v-state-texapp-2002.