Sipp, Ronald Harvey v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 3, 2002
Docket01-01-00492-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Sipp, Ronald Harvey v. State (Sipp, Ronald Harvey 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.

Bluebook
Sipp, Ronald Harvey v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Opinion issued July 3, 2002





In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas



NO. 01-01-00492-CR

____________



RONALD HARVEY SIPP, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 785062



O P I N I O N

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement with the State, appellant, Ronald Harvey Sipp, pleaded guilty to the third degree felony offense of possession of marihuana, and the trial court assessed punishment at seven years community supervision and a $1000 fine. Thereafter, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant's community supervision, and appellant pleaded true to the allegation that he failed to report to his community supervision officer for eight months. The trial court granted the State's motion and sentenced appellant to four years confinement and a $1000 fine. We affirm.

Background

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a brief stating that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds of error on appeal. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant subsequently filed a pro se brief to which the State filed a response. We address potential sources of error identified by appellant in his pro se brief and conduct an independent review of the record for any arguable error which requires reversal.

Involuntary Pleas

Appellant essentially raises two issues for our review. First, he contends that "all relevant pleas" were entered into involuntarily, as demonstrated by his waiver of a court reporter in all proceedings. Second, he contends that he pleaded true to the allegation that he violated the terms of his community supervision without understanding the consequences of his actions.

In regard to appellant's first issue, we note that a plea-bargaining defendant on appeal may not attack the voluntariness of his plea. Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to reach the issue of the voluntariness of appellant's original plea of guilty. Id.

In regard to his second issue, appellant argues that his plea of true that he violated the terms of his community supervision was not intelligently and voluntarily made because he (1) waived a court reporter, (2) pleaded true without an agreed punishment recommendation from the State, and (3) upon bad advice, sent a "disrespectful and insulting" letter to the Harris County Community Supervision and Corrections Department.

The record reflects that, prior to accepting appellant's plea of true, the trial court admonished appellant in writing concerning the consequences of his plea. The court's written admonishments were accompanied by a document, signed by appellant, entitled "Statement of Defendant." In this document, appellant stated that he understood the court's written admonishments, that he understood the consequences of his plea, and that he waived his right to have a court reporter record his plea of true.

Once an accused attests that he understands the nature of his plea and that it is voluntary he has a heavy burden to prove on appeal that his plea was involuntary. Edwards v. State, 921 S.W.2d 477, 479 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet.). Other than making the above general arguments, appellant directs us to no evidence, and we have found none in the record, that his plea of true was involuntary.

We overrule appellant's second issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.



Terry Jennings

Justice



Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Jennings, and Price. (1)

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.

1.

The Honorable Frank Price, former Justice, Court of Appeals, First District of Texas at Houston, participating by assignment.

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Cooper v. State
45 S.W.3d 77 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Edwards v. State
921 S.W.2d 477 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Gainous v. State
436 S.W.2d 137 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sipp, Ronald Harvey v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sipp-ronald-harvey-v-state-texapp-2002.