Claveton Jamond Holman v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 240th District Court of Fort Bend County

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-02-00182-CR
______________________________
CLAVETON HOLMAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 240th Judicial District Court
Fort Bend County, Texas
Trial Court No. 33289
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 18, 2000, Claveton Holman pled guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery in Fort Bend County, cause number 33289. Holman simultaneously pled guilty to a second indictment for aggravated robbery in Fort Bend County, cause number 33287. After admonishing Holman about the punishment range applicable in these cases (five to ninety-nine years, or life), the trial court accepted Holman's plea in both cases, deferred findings of guilt, and (pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement) placed Holman on community supervision for a period of six years, provided and conditioned that Holman not use alcohol or controlled substances, report to the community supervision officer each month, maintain suitable employment, pay a monthly supervision fee, pay a fine and the costs of court, reimburse the county for court-appointed attorney's fees, work 300 hours of community service, complete a literacy laboratory and a psychological evaluation, make a one-time payment to the local Crime Stoppers program, and comply with the trial court's orders regarding electronic monitoring.

On July 25, 2001, the State filed motions to adjudicate Holman's guilt in both cases. The State subsequently amended its motions to adjudicate Holman's guilt in each case. In a consolidated hearing, the trial court heard evidence and argument on the amended motions to adjudicate guilt. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ruled the State had proven Holman violated the terms of his community supervision. The court then adjudicated Holman's guilt in both cases and sentenced him to sixteen years' imprisonment in each case. The two sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. Holman filed a pro se notice of appeal.

On January 10, 2003, Holman's appellate counsel filed an Anders (1) brief in which counsel professionally discussed the record, described the issues reviewed, and concluded there were no arguable grounds for appeal and, as required by Anders, also filed a motion to withdraw. Counsel sent Holman a copy of the appellate brief and informed Holman of his right to file a pro se response and of his right to review the record.

This Court informed Holman at that time that his response, if any, was due within thirty days. Holman has since requested two extensions of time to file his response brief. We granted both requests, but as of this date, Holman has not filed a pro se response. Nor has the State filed a brief in this case. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 2.01 (Vernon Supp. 2003) (district attorney shall represent the State in appeals and has a duty, not to convict, but see justice done); Tex. R. App. P. 38.2 (contents of State's brief); Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(b) (appellee's brief due thirty days after appellant's brief is filed). We have independently reviewed the record and the brief filed by counsel in this appeal, and we agree there are no arguable issues that would support an appeal in this case.

A trial court cannot revoke a grant of deferred adjudication without a showing that the defendant violated a condition of his or her supervision. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2003) (on violation of a condition, defendant may be arrested and held for adjudication hearing). However, once it is shown the defendant violated a term of the condition of his or her community supervision, the trial court may adjudicate the defendant's guilt and proceed to sentencing as if the granting of community supervision had not occurred. Id. No appeal may be taken from the trial court's decision to proceed to an adjudication of guilt. Id. Accordingly, courts of appeals may not review the factual or legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's decision to proceed to an adjudication of guilt. The scope of courts of appeals' ability to review cases such as this is generally limited to matters arising from the trial court's punishment hearing. Id.; Washington v. State, 71 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2002, no pet.).

Because the trial court had adjudicated Holman's guilt for an offense listed in Article 42.12, Section 3g, the trial court's sole option in sentencing was imprisonment. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 3g(1)(F) (Vernon Supp. 2003) (judge may not order community supervision for a defendant adjudged guilty of aggravated robbery). The punishment assessed in both cases was sixteen years' imprisonment, which is on the lower end of the statutory range. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 12.32 (Vernon 2003) (statutory range for first-degree felony is five to ninety-nine years, or life); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 29.03 (Vernon 2003) (aggravated robbery is first-degree felony). The record demonstrates no evidence the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Holman within a range provided for by statute.

 

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

 

Jack Carter

Justice

 

Date Submitted: May 28, 2003

Date Decided: July 8, 2003

 

Do Not Publish

1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).