Zkaveon Devante Pleasant v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 2, 2023
• Docket: 05-22-01042-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed November 2, 2023

In the Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas Nos. 05-22-01040-CR 05-22-01041-CR 05-22-01042-CR 05-22-01043-CR 05-22-01044-CR

ZKAVEON DEVANTE PLEASANT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F17-52206, F17-52207, F17-70396, F17-75256, and F17-75275

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Carlyle, Smith, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Carlyle Zkaveon Devante Pleasant appeals the revocation of his community

supervision and adjudication of guilt for the offenses of robbery, evading arrest, and

aggravated robbery. As modified below, we affirm in this memorandum opinion.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw that is supported by a brief

in which he professionally examines the record and applicable law then concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Specifically, counsel analyzes potential

issues concerning (1) venue, (2) the applicable statutes of limitations, (3)

appointment of counsel, (4) the indictment, (5) motions to revoke and adjudicate, (6)

waiver of the right to a jury, (7) the sufficiency of the evidence, (8) objections and

rulings, (9) admonitions, (10) the validity of the sentence, (11) effective assistance

of counsel, and (12) the performed duties of appointed counsel. After an order from

this Court, counsel supplemented the brief with additional details concerning

sentencing.

We conclude counsel’s amended brief meets the requirements of Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), presents a professional evaluation of the record,

and shows why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See High v.

State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining

whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel certifies that he has provided

Mr. Pleasant with a copy of the brief and his motion to withdraw. On May 23, 2023,

this Court advised Mr. Pleasant of his right to file a pro se response, but he has not

done so. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

(explaining right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).

We have reviewed the record, the Anders brief filed by Mr. Pleasant’s counsel,

and the letter response filed by the State. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–

27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (identifying appellate courts’ duties in Anders cases). We

–2– agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in the record

that might arguably support the appeal.

The State has asked us to modify the judgment below to reflect the amount of

unpaid costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1993) (en banc); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—

Dallas, pet. ref’d); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.16. Here, the record reflects that

(1) appellant was adjudicated guilty in five cases, (2) the trial court assessed $522.90

in costs in four of those cases (including F17-75275), (3) the trial court assessed

$549.90 in one of those cases, and (4) appellant paid $298.90 in costs.

We therefore modify the judgment in F17-75275 (the highest category offense

at issue) to reflect the fact that appellant has a total unpaid balance of $271.90 in

costs for all of the cases below and affirm the judgment as modified.

221040f.u05 /Cory L. Carlyle// CORY L. CARLYLE 221041f.u05 JUSTICE 221042f.u05 221043f.u05 221044f.u05

Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

–3– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

ZKAVEON DEVANTE On Appeal from the 194th Judicial PLEASANT, Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17-52206. No. 05-22-01040-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. Justices Smith and Kennedy THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 2nd day of November, 2023.

–4– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

ZKAVEON DEVANTE On Appeal from the 194th Judicial PLEASANT, Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17-52207. No. 05-22-01041-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. Justices Smith and Kennedy THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

–5– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

ZKAVEON DEVANTE On Appeal from the 194th Judicial PLEASANT, Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17-70396. No. 05-22-01042-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. Justices Smith and Kennedy THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

–6– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

ZKAVEON DEVANTE On Appeal from the 194th Judicial PLEASANT, Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17-75275. No. 05-22-01043-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. Justices Smith and Kennedy THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED to add the following:

Defendant has an unpaid balance of $271.90 in costs.

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

–7– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

ZKAVEON DEVANTE On Appeal from the 194th Judicial PLEASANT, Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17-75256. No. 05-22-01044-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. Justices Smith and Kennedy THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

–8–