Veronica Hammond v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-03-00399-CR
Veronica HAMMOND,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2000CR3167W
Honorable Mark R. Luitjen, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 24, 2004

AFFIRMED

Veronica Hammond was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of six years. Later, when she pled true to violating a condition of her community supervision, the trial court revoked her community supervision, adjudicated her guilt, and sentenced her to thirty years imprisonment. Hammond now appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Hammond was charged with the felony offense of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, 4-200 grams. On June 16, 2000, Hammond waived indictment, entered a plea of guilty to the charged offense, and applied for deferred adjudication community supervision. In exchange for her plea of guilty, the State recommended "punishment to be assessed at six years [and a] fine [of] $1000." In addition, the State recommended community supervision; however, with regard to Hammond's deferred adjudication application, it made no recommendation.

In support of Hammond's guilty plea, the State admitted in evidence a "waiver, consent to stipulation of testimony and stipulations," which were signed by Hammond and her attorney. This document contained a judicial confession signed by Hammond and an investigative report prepared by a sheriff investigator.

On August 3, 2000, the trial court deferred further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilty and placed Hammond on community supervision for a period of six years. On October 26, 2001, the State filed a motion to revoke community supervision and enter adjudication of guilt. The trial court denied the motion. On March 7, 2003, the State filed a second motion to revoke community supervision and enter adjudication of guilt. At the hearing, Hammond pled true to violating condition number one of her community supervision by committing the offense of credit card abuse. On April 17, 2003, the trial court revoked Hammond's community supervision, found her guilty, and sentenced her to thirty years imprisonment. Hammond timely filed a notice of appeal. Hammond's court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a brief in which he concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel states that appellant was provided with a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was further informed of her right to review the record and file her own brief. Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Hammond has filed a pro se brief. In her brief, she argues that she did not understand that if her deferred adjudication community supervision was revoked, she could be sentenced within the full range of punishment for her offense. See Von Schounmacher v. State, 5 S.W.3d 221, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) ("[O]nce the trial court proceeds to adjudication, it is restricted in the sentence it imposes only by the relevant statutory limits."). However, at the June 16, 2000 hearing, Hammond was fully warned by the trial court of the consequences of not complying with the conditions of her deferred adjudication community supervision:

Court: If you are granted deferred adjudication, you will be placed on community supervision without being found guilty. There is a downside to that, though. This is a first-degree felony that you are pleading to, and a person who is on deferred adjudication is facing this possibility: That while they are on community supervision, the judge will decide to bring them in and have a hearing on whether he should enter a finding of guilt. After the hearing, he can make a finding of guilt for whatever reason that he thought sufficient. He could then assess any punishment authorized by law for this offense, meaning up to a life sentence and a $10,000.00 fine, and the law would give you no right of appeal. Do you understand all that?

Hammond: Uh-huh. Yes, sir.

(emphasis added). Hammond, thus, indicated to the trial court that she did understand the consequences.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

Karen Angelini, Justice

Do not publish