Sadler John Hair v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 30, 2024
• Docket: 07-23-00372-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-23-00372-CR

SADLER JOHN HAIR, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 106th District Court Garza County, Texas Trial Court No. 18-3060, Honorable Reed A. Filley, Presiding

April 30, 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

In March of 2019, Appellant, Sadler John Hair, pleaded guilty to possession of a

controlled substance, a third-degree felony.1 The trial court suspended Appellant’s

sentence and placed him on community supervision for a term of six years. In July of

2023, the State filed an application to revoke Appellant’s community supervision, alleging

that Appellant had violated several conditions of his community supervision. The State

1 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (c). claimed that Appellant had used a controlled substance without a prescription, failed to

report to his community supervision officer as required, and failed to pay his supervision

fees. At a hearing on the State’s motion, Appellant appeared with counsel. He pleaded

“true” to the allegation that he failed to pay his fees and “not true” to the other allegations.

After hearing testimony, the trial court found that Appellant had violated terms of his

community supervision. The trial court revoked Appellant’s community supervision and

sentenced him to ten years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders2

brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has conducted

a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no

reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the

controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant,

counsel notified him of his motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of the motion,

Anders brief, and appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se response.

See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed

counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief).

By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se response to

2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

2 counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant has not filed a response. The State has not filed a

brief.

By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error

may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently

examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were

preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409;

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Following our review of

the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there are no grounds for appellate

review that would result in reversal of Appellant’s conviction or sentence.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 See

TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).

Judy C. Parker Justice

Do not publish.

3 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send Appellant 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. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.