Timothy Earl Mangram v. The State of Texas Appeal from 64th District Court of Hale County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-14-00425-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, C.J., 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. 1 Trial on the State’s motion See 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. 2 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
