Ronald Jay Blackshear v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 115th District Court of Upshur County

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-07-00024-CR
______________________________
RONALD JAY BLACKSHEAR, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 115th Judicial District Court
Upshur County, Texas
Trial Court No. 13,882
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION

After Ronald Jay Blackshear pled "true" to having violated the conditions of his community supervision for possessing less than one gram of cocaine, the trial court adjudicated Blackshear's guilt and assessed his punishment at eighteen months' imprisonment. Blackshear timely appealed the trial court's judgment, but his appellate counsel has 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. As required by Anders, counsel also filed a motion to withdraw. Counsel also sent Blackshear a copy of the appellate brief and informed him of his right to file a response pro se and of his right to review the record.

This Court informed Blackshear that his response, if any, was due by May 3, 2007. As of this date, we have not received such a response. Nor has the State submitted a brief or letter analysis of the appeal. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 2.01 (Vernon 2005).

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. First, any potential issues related to Blackshear's original guilty plea (such as voluntariness or evidentiary sufficiency) would have to have been raised in an appeal from the original plea. Because Blackshear did not timely appeal the original guilty plea proceeding, we cannot now address any potential issues related to that proceeding. See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Second, the Legislature has precluded this Court from reviewing a trial court's decision to proceed to an adjudication of guilt. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 5(b) (Vernon 2006). And finally, the trial court assessed a punishment within the range allowed under Texas law following Blackshear's judicial admission to having violated two terms and conditions of his community supervision. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 12.42(d) (Vernon Supp. 2006).

We agree that the case before us presents no reversible error. (2)

For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

 

Jack Carter

Justice

 

Date Submitted: May 29, 2007

Date Decided: June 14, 2007

 

Do Not Publish

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

2. Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of Blackshear in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Blackshear wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Blackshear must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.