Phillip Devonn Smith v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-18-00036-CR NO. 09-18-00037-CR ____________________ PHILLIP DEVONN SMITH, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 13-17281 & 17-27200 MEMORANDUM OPINION Phillip Devonn Smith appeals his convictions for the offenses of possession of a controlled substance and evading arrest or detention. We affirm. In 2013, Smith was charged by indictment for the offense of possession of a controlled substance, phencyclidine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 1 (West 2017).1 Smith pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years’ imprisonment, suspended the sentence, and placed Smith on community supervision for a term of ten years. In December of 2015, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Community Supervision, which alleged eight violations of the terms of his community supervision; in March of 2017, the State filed a First Amended Motion to Revoke Community Supervision, which alleged eleven violations of the terms of his community supervision; and in April of 2017, the State filed a Second Amended Motion to Revoke Community Supervision, which alleged fifteen violations of the terms of his community supervision. At a hearing in August of 2017, Smith pleaded true to one count in the Second Amended Motion to Revoke. In January of 2018, after a pre-sentence investigation was completed, the trial court revoked Smith’s community supervision and imposed the previously suspended sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. In 2017, Smith was indicted for the offense of evading arrest or detention by use of a vehicle, and the indictment alleged two prior convictions for possession of a controlled substance. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04 (West 2016). At a hearing in August of 2017, Smith entered an open plea of guilty and waived a jury trial, and 1 We cite the current version of the statutes herein because subsequent amendments do not affect our disposition. 2 subsequently, Smith filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea, which the trial court denied. In January of 2018, after a pre-sentence investigation was completed, the trial court sentenced Smith to twenty-five years’ imprisonment for the charge of evading arrest, and ten years for the charge of possession of a controlled substance, with the sentences to run concurrently. Smith’s appointed appellate counsel filed briefs in both appellate causes that present counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and conclude the appeals are without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Smith to file a pro se brief, and Smith filed a pro se response in both appellate cases in which he stated that he has “reformed [his] moral character” and he asked this Court for “the chance to prove [his] reformed behavior.” We find that Smith’s pro se letters raise no legal basis to support his appeals and include no citations to authority or to the record; thus, the letters do not meet the requirements for an appellate brief and present nothing for our review. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f), (i); Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.); Nguyen v. Kosnoski, 93 S.W.3d 186, 188 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.). 3 Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). With respect to both appeals, we have reviewed the entire record, counsel’s briefs, and Smith’s pro se responses, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal in either cause. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments.2 AFFIRMED. _________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice 2 Smith may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 4 Submitted on November 2, 2018 Opinion Delivered November 28, 2018 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. 5
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.
