Joseph Daryl Mathis v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 1, 2015·No. 01-14-00832-CR·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 01-14-00832-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/1/2015 3:27:39 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

No. 01-14-00832-CR CLERK

In the Court of Appeals FILED IN For the 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS First District of Texas 4/1/2015 3:27:39 PM At Houston CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk 

No. 1173963 In the 183rd District Court Of Harris County, Texas



JOSEPH DARYL MATHIS Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee

STATE’S APPELLATE BRIEF

DEVON ANDERSON District Attorney Harris County, Texas

ALAN CURRY State Bar No: 05263700 Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas

JOSEPH SANCHEZ Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 Tel.: 713/755-5826 FAX No.: 713/755-5809 curry_alan@dao.hctx.net

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ONLY IF REQUESTED BY APPELLANT STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(g) and TEX. R. APP. P. 39.1, the State requests

oral argument only if oral argument is requested by the appellant.

i IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 38.2(a)(1)(A), a complete list of the names of all

interested parties is provided below.

Complainant, victim, or aggrieved party:

B. Goldstein

Counsel for the State:

Devon Anderson  District Attorney of Harris County

Alan Curry  Assistant District Attorney on appeal

Joseph Sanchez  Assistant District Attorney at trial

Susan Bishop  Assistant District Attorney at trial

Appellant or criminal defendant:

Joseph Daryl Mathis

Counsel for Appellant:

Juan Contreras  Counsel on appeal

Enrique Ramirez  Counsel at trial

Andre Ligon  Counsel at trial

Trial Judge:

Hon. Vanessa Velasquez  Presiding Judge

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ................................................i

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES ................................................................. ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................iv

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................................................................. 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................... 1

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

REPLY TO SOLE POINT OF ERROR .................................................................... 2

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 4

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ......................................................................... 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................. 6

iii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES

Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ..................................................................3 Ex parte Insall, 224 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) ..................................................................3 Gutierrez v. State, 108 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) ..................................................................3 Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ..................................................................3

RULES

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.2(a)(1)(A)....................................................................................... ii TEX. R. APP. P. 39.1 ..................................................................................................... i TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(g) .................................................................................................. i

iv TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The appellant was charged with the felony offense of aggravated assault of a

public servant (C.R. 13). The appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense in

accordance with a plea bargain with the State (C.R. 60-61). After the trial judge found

that the evidence substantiated the appellant’s guilt, she placed the appellant on

probation for five years (C.R. 66). The State later filed a motion to adjudicate the

appellant’s guilt, alleging that the appellant had violated several conditions of his

probation (C.R. 101-02). After the trial judge found several allegations in the State’s

motion to adjudicate to be true, she assessed the appellant’s punishment at

confinement for seven years in prison (C.R. 118; R.R. II-53). A written notice of

appeal was timely filed (C.R. 115, 120).



STATEMENT OF FACTS

The State challenges all factual assertions in the appellant’s brief and presents

its account of the facts within its reply to the appellant’s sole point of error.

 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The record does not clearly reflect how the appellant pleaded to the allegations

in the State’s motion to adjudicate. This Court may not have enough information

from this record in order to reform the judgment, but the State is not opposed to

however this Court rules.

REPLY TO SOLE POINT OF ERROR

Under his sole point of error, the appellant claims, “The trial court mistakenly

entered a judgment that appellant plead ‘true’ to the allegations in the motion to

adjudicate rather than ‘not true.’” The appellant claims that the judgment in this case

should be reformed to reflect that the appellant pleaded “not true” to the allegations

in the State’s motion to adjudicate. The record does not clearly reflect the appellant’s

plea to the motion to adjudicate, although—in his testimony at the hearing on the

motion to adjudicate—the appellant clearly agreed to several of the allegations set

forth in the State’s motion to adjudicate (R.R. II-32-45). The appellant correctly notes

that the docket sheet reflects that the appellant pleaded “not true” to the allegations in

the State’s motion to adjudicate (C.R. 144).

The appellant does not otherwise challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to

support the trial court’s findings of “true” concerning several of the allegations in the

2 State’s motion to adjudicate. The appellant does not otherwise claim that the trial

judge abused her discretion in ultimately adjudicating the appellant’s guilt. With

regard to his rights on appeal, there is no real significance to how a defendant pleads

to a motion to adjudicate his guilt or a motion to revoke his probation. See Ex parte

Insall, 224 S.W.3d 213, 215 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Gutierrez v. State, 108 S.W.3d

304 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)); Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906, 912 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2006) (citing Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)). As the

appellant is seeking no more relief than reformation, the State leaves with this Court

the decision as to whether to reform the judgment in this case.

3 CONCLUSION

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI