Joshua Thomas Cotter v. The State of Texas Appeal from 181st District Court of Potter County (memorandum opinion by chief justice quinn)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-15-00346-CR JOSHUA THOMAS COTTER, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 181st District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 60,379-B, Honorable John B. Board, Presiding March 28, 2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Joshua Thomas Cotter, appellant, appeals from an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to five years in prison for possession of child pornography. After a jury found him guilty of the charged offense, he was assessed punishment at five years in prison. However, the sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on five years’ probation. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate his guilt and a hearing was held wherein appellant pled true to the allegations. The trial court recessed the hearing so that a pre-sentence investigation could be performed. The hearing was reconvened and the trial court heard additional evidence and entertained arguments from counsel. Afterwards, the trial court found appellant had violated his probation and sentenced him to five years in prison. Appellant then timely perfected his appeal and was assigned appointed counsel. Appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders1 brief. Through those documents, he certified that, after diligently searching the record, the appeal was without merit. Accompanying the brief and motion is a copy of a letter sent by counsel to appellant informing the latter of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response, pro se. Furthermore, counsel represented that a copy of the appellate record had been provided to appellant. By letter dated February 10, 2016, this court also notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by March 21, 2016, if he wished to do so. Appellant filed a response wherein he raised issues regarding discussion of polygraph exams by the court and the State, and in the PSI, claimed a 5th amendment violation, questioned the sufficiency of the evidence to support the probation revocation, and claimed prosecutorial misconduct. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed one potential area for appeal, which was prosecutorial misconduct. However, he then explained why the issue lacked merit. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record and appellant’s response to assess the accuracy of counsel’s conclusions and to uncover arguable error pursuant 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2 to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). No such error was uncovered. Appellant pled “true” to the allegations contained in the motion to revoke. That plea alone sufficed to support the revocation. Tapia v. State, 462 S.W.3d 29, 31 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.2 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. 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.
