Mangram, Timothy Earl

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 13, 2015
• Docket: PD-1038-15
• Status: Published

Opinion

/022/S no. /Wk<;^/o

IN THE ORIGINAL COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

-SywQ-JU £o* \ CV\GjAL\f

Petitioner AUG 13 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Petition in Cause No. Al^^'i^tb from the (oi/1^ Judicial District Court of //4/g County, Texas and Case No. 07-/V-QoWl^CR in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Supreme Judicial District of Texas

fa-) |ftn4Xh'//a 7€xaS

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

(DOUBT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUG 04 2015

Ab@Stosta,Cterk *!* *• $$% $** $% % '•& 9% .''•-'V ^<„- 'w

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....;......:... INDEX OF AUTHORITIES \ ............ . STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ...'.. STATEMENT OF THE CASE STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

1. See attached Examples

2.

REASONS FOR REVIEW PRAYER FOR RELIEF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE APPENDIX NO. fryW-orWa^c R

IN THE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Tx*>b\h,* (Tart (V^^C-fiK ly earl (Yxc^^Qi ir- [APPELLANT]

Petitioner

Petition in Cause No.ft \^Si± -tVOfrom the (g^f Judicial District Court oftia.(d county, Texas and Case No. 07->^ - exHa^-CR in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Supreme Judicial District of Texas

gf flftNArillo TovaS>

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS:

[APPELLANT] petitions the Court to review the judgment affirming his conviction

for the degree felony oftfyOO \u\itiS and punishment assessed at P* ***** ' \ yea*s confinement in the TDCJ-ID. STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

The grounds for review set forth in this petition concern ~7\*~ YY[c^ia.c/£^

Oral argument would be helpful to the Court in determining an important

constitutional issue, i.e., .

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The issues in this case concern Ti^ jfVWflA fa**-*' •

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner was charged by indictment with the $QQ^ degree felony offense of

>"uQfg_4V\ftyv4faDQ bjlteS j\#rf fThe jury convicted Petitioner of the offense of \Uai|j| pfapgri^ and sentenced Petitioner to aterm in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division for a period of j-O fv.5A-lpi<> . Petitioner appealed

the conviction to the Seventh Court of Appeals.

The Seventh Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming Petitioner's conviction

on ^Timi ffi l9m /^ . No motion for rehearing was filed by Petitioner. QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

1.

ARGUMENT

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays that this Court grant this

petition, and upon reviewing the judgment entered by the Seventh Court of Appeals, reverse

the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this cause with instructions to

Respectfully submitted,

APPELANT], [APPEL PETITIONER <* ° Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing instrument was provided to all counsel of record in this matter on the Ik dayof JL.Im , 20/^", in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. "

State Prosecuting Attorney P. O. Box 12405 Austin, Texas 78711

County District Attorney

Petitioner V Court of appeals; g>ebentlj JBtetrtct of Cexaa at gfotarillo

No. 07-14r00425-CR

TIMOTHY EARL MANGRAM, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 64th District Court Hale County, Texas Trial Court No. A19552-1310, Honorable Robert W. Kinkaid, Jr., Presiding

June 30,2015

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before QUINN, CJ., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Appellant, Timothy Earl Mangram, entered a plea of guilty on February 12, 2014,

to the offense of theft of property with a value of $1,500 or more but less than $20,000.1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find

appellant guilty; however, the trial court deferred final adjudication and placed appellant

on community supervision for a period of five years. Subsequently, on April 14, 2014,

the State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant guilty. Trial on the State's motion

1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A) (West Supp. 2014). occurred on November 7, 2014, and appellant entered a plea of true to one allegation

contained in the State's motion to adjudicate. Ultimately, the trial court found all six

allegations true and, after a separate punishment hearing, assessed appellant's

punishment at confinement in a State Jail Facility for 20 months. Appellant appeals the

trial court's judgment. We will affirm.

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.

By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an

appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds 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.2

2 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. FILE COPY

BRIAN QUINN Chier'Jusrice (Hmxxi ofappeals VIVIAN LONG Clerk

JAMES T. CAMPBELL Justice Js>enentl] ^talrfct of©exaa MAILING ADDRESS: MACKEY K. HANCOCK Potter (Eountg (Eourta £@utlnmg P. O. Box 9540 79105-9540 Justice 501^. ,3)jtIImon>,^wte 2-

6j&»br.txraurt».gno/7tt(coa.aapx

June 30, 2015

James B. Johnston Wally Hatch EASTERWOOD BOYD District Attorney & SIMMONS, P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1 P.O. Box 273 Plainview, TX 79072-8050 Hereford, TX 79045 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL

RE: Case Number: 07-14-00425-CR Trial Court Case Number: A19552-1310

Style: Timothy Earl Mangram v. The State of Texas

Dear Counsel:

The Court this day issued an opinion and judgment in the captioned cause. Tex. R.App. P. 48.

In addition, pursuant to Texas Government Code, Sec. 51.204(b)(2), exhibits on file with this Court, if any, will be destroyed three years after final disposition of the case or at an earlier date if ordered by the Court.

Very truly yours, /wean ^zZ&z& VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

xc: Honorable Robert W. Kinkaid, Jr. (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Carla Cannon (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Timothy Earl Mangram FILE COPY

No. 07-14-00425-CR

Timothy Earl Mangram From the 64th District Court Appellant of Hale County

v. June 30, 2015

The State of Texas Opinion by Justice Hancock Appellee

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated June 30, 2015, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

oOo 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. Additionally,

appellant's counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the record to

use in preparation of a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has filed a response.

We have reviewed this response by appellant. We have found no arguable

grounds contained in the response. Appellant's sole contention is that the State alleged

more instances of failing to meet curfew than actually occurred. However, appellant

does not address any of the other terms and conditions of community supervision that

the State's motion to adjudicate addresses. Proof of violation of a single term and

condition of community supervision is sufficient to support a trial court's decision to

adjudicate. See Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]

1980). Accordingly, appellant fails to raise an arguable ground in his response.

Counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court's judgment is

affirmed.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not publish. 3> £' 'O ^ CT

- 2. £ v ^ 55- 6

*• - •: -\

*3>

Lr