Sutherland v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Sutherland v. State

658 S.W.2d 169, 1983 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1188

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 12, 1983

Docket64355

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 658 S.W.2d 169 (Sutherland v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sutherland v. State, 658 S.W.2d 169, 1983 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1188 (Tex. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

Appellant entered a plea of not guilty before the court to the offense of delivery of a controlled substance, Hydromorphone. She was convicted and the court assessed punishment, enhanced by proof of a prior felony conviction, at imprisonment in the Texas Department of Corrections for 15 years.

On March 1, 1983, in an unreported per curiam opinion 646 S.W.2d 463, a companion conviction was affirmed and this conviction was abated. Appellant’s retained counsel in this case had filed a frivolous appeal brief. This Court abated the appeal for compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).

This Court has received a supplemental transcript from the trial court presenting additional information. The appeal is reinstated.

The supplemental transcript indicates that appellant, after being released on appeal bond, retained counsel to represent her on appeal. After being retained and before filing the appellate brief in this case, counsel made numerous attempts to contact the appellant regarding the appeal. Counsel states under oath that his client left for the State of Florida and will not return. He states that he had no contact with his client after being retained in this matter and that, for this reason, he cannot certify compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).

This information supplied by counsel is made under oath and is not challenged by the State. Under these circumstances, to abate this case again would be to require counsel to do a useless act.

We have carefully reviewed the record and find nothing that requires our review in the interest of justice.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

Appellant entered a plea of not guilty before the court to the offense of delivery of a controlled substance, Hydromorphone. She was convicted and the court assessed punishment, enhanced by proof of a prior felony conviction, at imprisonment in the Texas Department of Corrections for 15 years.

On March 1, 1983, in an unreported per curiam opinion 646 S.W.2d 463, a companion conviction was affirmed and this conviction was abated. Appellant’s retained counsel in this case had filed a frivolous appeal brief. This Court abated the appeal for compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).

This Court has received a supplemental transcript from the trial court presenting additional information. The appeal is reinstated.

The supplemental transcript indicates that appellant, after being released on appeal bond, retained counsel to represent her on appeal. After being retained and before filing the appellate brief in this case, counsel made numerous attempts to contact the appellant regarding the appeal. Counsel states under oath that his client left for the State of Florida and will not return. He states that he had no contact with his client after being retained in this matter and that, for this reason, he cannot certify compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).

This information supplied by counsel is made under oath and is not challenged by the State. Under these circumstances, to abate this case again would be to require counsel to do a useless act.

We have carefully reviewed the record and find nothing that requires our review in the interest of justice.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

658 S.W.2d 169, 1983 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutherland-v-state-texcrimapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack