ACCEPTED 06-14-00240-cr SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 4/22/2015 3:42:39 PM DEBBIE AUTREY CLERK

No. O6-L4-00240-CEt FILED IN IN The Sixth Court of Agrpeal.s 6th COURT OF APPEALS Texarkana, llexas TEXARKANA, TEXAS 4/22/2015 3:42:39 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk DENISE GAIL DOOLEY, AppeTTarzt, v. THE STATE OF TE:nS,, A5>pe77ee.

Appeals from the L24E}r Distr:ict Court Gregg CountY, Texasl Trial Court No. 42 ,348-8

ATIDERS BRIEF

ATTC)RD{EY FOR APPELLAIiIT: ,feff T. ilackson SBOT No . 2406997 6i 3 6.A Hvry 259 N .

KiJ-gore, TX 7 5662:' Phonre: 903- 654'33i62 Fax: 817-887-43133 oRAt ARGTIyIENT NOT REgUIESTED LrsT oF PARTTES Alrp cou$rqqL

API?ELLANT: DENISE GAIL DOOLEY TDCJ No. Pending Crarta -nrrnfrTu vv9rr \ Jail E. Methvin, Ste. 559 lvirY v ruyvor^r T,r^rnr-rrri I TX 75601 Lt

Rar^lrcrqanl- rf L nri orl cr r\sIJrErDsr.r L-sLr ai _LrJ.cl_L \Jr _Lv n r I nl a: hrz. p IJrsq- J .

Ed**ri Ch"y SBOT No. 24062665 El " Methvin St. lvrrY v rvvvor^r T,nnr-rrri f 'l'X 75601 Lz Phone: 903-2L2-4818 Repre:sented at sentencing by: Ri."h€ffi SBOT No. 10308600 N. Fredonia St. rJr\Jrr9V_LCWt ^^ ---.: ^-, -x rr 15606 Phoner. 903-234-8181 Reprersented on appeaf by: Jeff T. Jackson SBOT No. 2406991 6 136-A Hwy 259 N.

Kilgcrre, TX 15662 Phone: 903-65 4-3362 Fax: BIl - BB7-4333 APIIET,LEE: State of Texas Par, raqanl- r\EIJTC:DEr-rLCLr arl =f CLL a-'i ^-'i ^ - I \Jr-Lgl.rrCr_L nl ar y_LUd. l.rrz.

JJy .

"-raetrtCntrnfrz (]rarrrv v!vYY ""tt" vvurruJ l-)'i ql-ri uLOv!rvu r..l- nuuv!IIgy A1-1-nr?1a\Z SBOT No. 24059180 E:. Methvin, Ste. 333 T,nncrrri lvrrY oinr f- v revv fX 75601 Lz Phone: 903-236-8440 Bgpfesented at oriqi"?l Christopher Parker Gregg County District Attorney SBOT No. 24046585 B. Methvi-n, Ste. 333 Longview, TX 75601 Phone: 903-236-8440 Represented on appeal by: Van Colson Brown Gregg County District Attorney SBOT No. 03205900 E. Methvin, Ste. 333 Longview, TX 75601 Phone: 903-236-8440 TAT}LE Ol' CONTENTS List of Parties and Counsel.. .....i Table of Contents... ....iii Index of Authorities .....iv Statement of the Case ....vi fssues Presented ...v"iii Statement of Facts... .....1 Summary of t.he Arguments.. ....3 Arrrrrman.l- ...v A

I. APPELLANT'S PLEA OF GUILTY COM:PLIED WITH TI-{E REQUTREMENTS OF ARTTCLE 26.73 OF THE TEXA,S CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.. ...6 II NO OBJECTION TO THE EVIDENCE WAS MADE DURING THE PUNTSHMENT STAGE OF ]]RIAL AND NO MERITORIOUS LEGAL CLAIM EXISTS RELATED TO THE IMPOSIT]ON OF PUNISHMENT . . .8 I]I. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL IS NOT A VIABLE CLAIM BASED ON THE] RECORD BEFORE THIS COURT .....10 Statement of Attornev to the Court . . .13 Conclusion and Praver ....I4 Certificat-e of Compl-iance ....15 Cert.ificat-e of Service.. .... -16 rNDEX OE' AUTHORITTES

Ca:se Law: An<lers v. Caf if ornia, rJ.s. '/38, '744, (1967) A 1A Rrlr'ltt uLc/sJ \rv . flnifarl vf tl Lvv .(f-afac u e a L=.) f U.S. '/42, 149, (1970) . 1

Crawford v. State, S)"W.2d 542, 544 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985)" j Cu::rie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.I9j4) . 14 Fu<>ntes v . State, Si .W.2d 542, 544 (Tex.Crim.App 1985). j Hernandez v. State, 126 S.W.2d 53, 51 (Tex.Crim.App.19BG) . 11 Jac:k v. State, B7I Si.W.2d 14I (Tex.Cr.App.I9j4) 5 Jac:kson v. State, S.W.2d'/68, 11I (Tex.Crim.App. 1994) .11 Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W. 116 (Tex.App.-Dal_las 1995r rro pet.). 5, L4 Stz"ickl-and v. Washington, u.s. 668 (1984). 11, 12 Thc,mpson v. State, S.W.3d B0B, BI2 (Tex.Cri_m.App. 1999) . 11 ,, 12 United States v. Johnson, F .2d I32B , L329 ( 5rh Cir . I9j 6) . 4

IV Startutes :

Tex.. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 26.L3 . 5, 6, 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASF]

Appe-Llant waived indictment f or attemptrngJ to possess or obtain a control-l-ed subst.ance by fraud I a th.Lrd deqyree felony, and elected to enter a guilty plea to the court on April 18 , 201,3. RR2 p . 5; CR p . 26 .

Aplrell-ant. waived presentment of the case to a grand jury an<l pletrded "gui ILy" to the of f ense alleged by j-n:formati.on presented by the office of the Gregg County District Attorney. CR p. 6, 26; RR2 p. 5. The Lrial court de.ferred a f inding of guilt f or f our years and placed Appell-ant on deferred adjudication probation with ce:rtain condit.ions . RR2 p. L2; CR p. 22 .

On December 3L, 2013, the Trial Cou.rt heard an aqreed modificat.ion of probation. RR 4, p. 4. At that time,, the trial- court modj-fied the Conditlons of Probal:ion, re<luiring that Appel-l-ant attend and complete the lf exas Detrartmerrt of Crimj-nal Just.ice (TDCJ) Substance Abuse Fe Lony Purnishment Facility (SAFP ). RR4 , p 4; CR p . 52 .

V1 On December LI, 2074, the Tri-al Court heard the Stiete' s Application for Adjudication of Guilt 1n this caltse. RR5, p. 5; CR pp. 59-60, 65. Appel-l-ant pleaded "t:rue" to the allegatj-ons contained in the ApplicaLion, anrl the trial court found Appel-lant guilty of attempting to possess or obtain a controll-ed substance by f :raud.

RRli pp 5^6; CR 65. A punj-shment tri-al- was heard by the tr.Lal court wherein evidence was presented by botLt the Appellant and the State . RR5 pp . 6-28. Appel-l-ant- was sent.encecl by the Trial- Court to seven (7 ) years confinement in the fnstitutional Division of the ilexas Department of Criminal- Justice. CR5 p. 29-30; CR 65.

vll ISSUES PRESENTED

r. whether Appellant's plea of guilty complied with the recJuirement.s of Article 26 .73 of the Texas code of Cri-minal- Procedure?

r r . wheth.er an ob j ect.ion was made to the evid.ence or exhribits during the punishment staoe of 1- ri :l ?

rrr. whether ineffecti-ve assistance of trial- counsel is a via.ble claim based upon the record before t.his court?

v111 TO THE HC)NORABLE S IXTH COURT OF APPEALS : Comes now rlef f T. Jackson, attorney f or DENISE GAIL DOOLEY, Appel-l-ant in the above styled and numbered \-O. l.,tDeDt ".^^ !soI/Eeu!uf,f,J resner:tfrr-l I rz Cl-IIL,t srrbmi ouvlllruJ t.s this I Anders Brief: and wor:ld show the Court the f ol-lowinq:

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Appe-Llant was charged by information with attemptj-ng to possess or obt.aj-n a controlled substance by frau<J. CR p. 6. The State alleged that on January B, 2013, n^,^^-l'l n1.,lgcr-Lo-rrL. -^.t- crL-L.srrrlrL-sLr -+-F^1-^]-^-i u\r pOSSeSS a COnt-rOlled f ^ SUbStanCe, narnel rrsrrrvf rz- J, Hrzdrnr-ndnne |- rrJV! hrorrch fVLLL uSe of a f raudulent te.Iephonl..cally communicated prescription. CR5 S-1, S-2.

Ed'ruard Ch.oy represented Appellant, and on April 18, ',20L3, Arrrral I rnf onl- 9rru9rvvarad ,a nl \\rrrri 1l'.t" fal/lvvIrqIrL. q yfvs a: r'rf v! YurruJ fuvr-r ho l-errv r-h;arrrarl vra(/!Yvv

offense. RR2 p. 5; CR p. 12. Based on NOTE: The record is referred to as: t'CF{": clerk's record in Cause No.43406-A. "RI{": reporter's record in Cause No.43406-A. a pf ea ag.reement between Appellant and the state, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt, placing App,ell-ant on deferred adjudication probation for four years with various conditions of probation. RR2 p. 12; CR pp. 10, 18, 22.

On December 3I, 2013, Richard Hurl_burt represented the Appellant on an agreed modificati"on of probation.

RR4, p. 4 . Based on an agreement between Appell_ant and the state, the trial court modif ied t.he conditions of probation by adding the condition f ha1- Arr^o'l'lant attend and complete SAFP. RR4, p 4; CR 52 .

On December II, 2014, t.he Trial- Court heard the state's Application for Adjudication of Guilt of the Appel-lant for the offense of att.empting to possesri or obtain a cont.rolled substance by f raud. RR5, p. 5; CR p. 65 . Richard Hurlburt represented the Appel_lant,, A punishment trial was heard bv the Tri.al court wherein evj-dence was presented by both the Appellant and the state" RR5 pp. 6-28. Appellant was sentenced by the Trial Court to seven Vears confinement. in the Institut.lonal Division of the Texas DepartmenL of Cr:Lminal Justice with credit f or ti-me she had se::ved.

RRIi p. 29-30 .

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS

Unde::: Anders v. Cal_ifornia, 386 U. S. 738, 744, (7967) , a court-appointed attorney may not raise an j-ssue in an appeal if he makes a conscientious examinatlon of the case and f inds the appeal is wholly f rivol_ous. To contply with Anders, counsel must j-sof ate "poss;ibly important issues" and "furnish the cour:t with referelnces to the recc-.] :nrl 1an3l authoritj_es to aid it in its appellat.e function . " tLnited Sta tes v. Johnson, 52't E .2d, 732:.8, L329 (5th cir. r91 6) . After the ilppeltant is given an opportunity to respond, the court makes a f ull_ exaLmination of the record to detect whether the case is frivolous. Anders, 386 u. s. at 1 44. Appellant \s counsel- has reviewed the clerk's Record and .Re'oort.er 's Record frc'm the llrial court, the sentence received by Appellant and. the factual basis for the sentence. As set forth in the Brief , there are no non-frivol_ous j_ssues.

The record reveals that the trial court substant.iallv comLplied with Article 26.13 of the Te><as code of Criminal_ Procedure whon ar-r-an]- i r1g' Appel_lant' s plea. CR2 pp. 5- 10. No obj ection was m:do l"rrz Annellant to any of the evidence, exhi-bits, def erment of a f inding of gui1.t or placement of Appell-ant on def erred adj udication probation. RR2 pp. 11-14. There are no jurisdictional_ defects. There are no 11nn-iirni qrli nlional defects arislng at or after entry of the plea. ,See Jack v. State, BlI S . W. 2d 1 41 (Tex . Cr. App . 1"91 4) . Counsel- has al-so f iled with this Court a Motj-on to Withdraw as Court Appoi.nted Counsel orl Appeal with supporting exhibits j-n accordance wif h |he nrocedures vu!vv and srrv standardS uusrrsu!vu Set uvu out. vuu in JrI ,Tefferv vvr!v!-y \/- v.

State, 903 S.W. 116 (Tex.App.-Dal-l-as 1995, no pet.)

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES I.

APPE],LANT ' S PLEA OF GUILTY COMPI,IED WITH THEI

REQU:I-REMENTS OF ARTICLE 26.13 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CI.{IMINAL PROCEDURE .

Appe-l-l-ant's counsel has reviewed thLe record in detail ancl has identified no action or i-naction on the t-rial court's part t.hat suggests harmfu,I error in the Defendant's pleading guilty to the charges.

Befo:::e accepting a guilty plea, the trial court must adnnonish a def endant of : (1) the punishment range , (2) the fact that the State's sentencinq recommendation is not- binding on the court, (3) the limited right to appeal anrl urf\a (4\ \ r/ fhe urrv ncrssihilifrz yvuurv!rruJ of dcnortal.ion. Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. art. 26.13(a). The admonishments may be made eit-her orally or in writing. Id at 26.I3 (d) .

At Appellant's original pleas, the court admonj-shed Annal l:nf .)n f ha nra I--Jper range for the charge of attempting to possess or obta j-n a controlled substance by fraud . RR2 pp . 5-6; CR pp . j -B . The court subst.antially complied with the requ j-rement.s of t.he SteitUte i.n 3r'r.arr1. inr.r anrro'l I =n1- t c rrrrf lty plea aS eVidelnCed by the written plea admoni-shments and verbal adnonj-shments by the trial judge. RR2 pp. 5-10, CR pp.

7-8.

To bel constitutionally valid, a guilty plea must be kncrwing and voluntary. See Brady v. United Sta tes , 391 U.S. '742, 149, (1970); see al-so Tex" Code Crim. Proc.

Ann. art. 26.13 (b) . When the record shows that the t.rial court. admonished the defendant in subst-antial- compli.ance wit.h Art j..cl-e 26 .13 of the Code of Criminal Proceclure, thj-s is a prj-ma facie showing that the plea was knowing ancl volu.ntarv. ,See Tex . Code Crim. Proc Ann . art .

26.L3 (C); See Crawford v. State, 890 S.w.2d 542, 544 (Tex " Cr j-rn. App . 198 5 ) . There is nothing in the record to 'i nrli n=J-a IIILIIL-A(-g arrnal l:nl- n.L1_y9fJqrlU nl e,aded I/Jsquev YufruJ I f crrri rz ;rnd L:trv trtte e!u Wit.hOUt uncierstanding the consequences of he:: plea, and as a -^.-,. r IEDUTt-7 | 7\nngll_ant l1v-y SUf f ered nO harm. See FUenteS V .

St,zte, 6BB S.W.2d 542, 544 (Tex.Crim-App 1985). The trj-al court accepted Appellant's ori-qi-nal plea of guilty anci a finding of guilt was deferred" RR2 pp. 10-14. The vol-unt.ariness of Appellant's pleas is shown by the record.. RR2 p. 5-10; CR p. B. The trial- court asked Appell-ant's trial- attorney certain questions relating to Appellant' s competetcY, and. the trial- court f:ound Appell-ant to be competent. RR 2 p. 10. Appell-ant also steited j-1 her writt.en plea admonishment.s that she was competent . CR p. B II.

NO OBJECTION TO EV]DENCE OR EXHIBITS WAS MADT] DURTNG THE PUN]SHMENT STAGE OF TRIAL AND NC)

MERITORIOUS LEGAL CLAIM EXISTS RELATED TO THE]

IMPOS]ITION OF PUNISHMENT.

On the l8th day of April, 2013, Appel-l-ant's plea of gu-Llty w.is accepted by the trial- court. CR2 pp. 10.

Ap1:ell-ant. was placed on deferred adjud.ication probal-i-on, ancl the trial- court adj udicated Appel-lant guilty on December LL, 2014. RR 5 p. 30; CR p. 65" The punisirment phirse of Appell-ant' s trial began on December II , 20L4 .

RR5 p. 6 ,. No evidence was presented by the state other than the Stipulation of Evidence and the Guilty lllea.

RRli p. 1 . Appel-l-ant made no ob j ect j-on to evj-dence or exlribits of fered by the state, RR5 pp. 6-28, and the trial judge sentenced Appellant. to seven (7) years in the Instituti..onal- Division of t.he Texeis Department- of Cr.iminal- Justice (TDCJ) RR5 p. 30; CR p" 65.

The t.rial- court was the fact finder for purposes of the: punishment decision. The evidence before the court was Subst-antial and the sentence was adequate. The juclge's remarks followi-ng the cl-ose of evidence indi.cate the circumstances taken in consi-deration rel-ated to the sentence assessed in open court - RR5 pp. 30-31.

III.

INEFF'ECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL ]S NOT

A VIABLE CLA]M BASED UPON THE RECORD BEFORE THIS COURT

Claims of i-nef f ective assistance of counsel are an.il vzed, under the two-prong test set out by the United States Supreme Court in Strickfand v. Vfashington, 466 U. Si. 658 (1984) , and adopted by Texas in Hernandez v. state,726 S"W.2d 53, 51 (Tex.Crim.App"1986) . Appel-l-ant muriL show that trial counsel-'s performance waS defic:-ent, +r-\-\f LIt<lL- i e ^^rrr.rsel fDl L-\-/LtrIlJsl r.s renresent.ation o !s}/!\ fell below an objective standard of reasonableness . Thompson v. State, 9 S,'W. 3d B0{1, BI2 (Tex.Crim.APP. 1999) .

Appe"Ll-ant must also show that counsel-'s deficient na'rfrrrm^rlr-e I/g-L !Vrrllqrlve nrcrrrrli -y- "J r-erl his defense. StrickTand, 466 U.S. at 687; Jackson v. State, B1'/ S-W.2d '768, 11I /'n,rv r'-ri nr arrrr 1 qq4 \I . Thi rftrt e !vYuf rocrri !vu res An'nel I ant ShOW thef e \ l-t-21 . \/I-LIL[.l-1l-,,.y. -LJJa

Is is a reasonable probability that, but f or counisel Lf,fI-y!VIgt\JJvlIsI essl i ona r'rn'nrr.rf I arrors - the reSuIt Of th.e prOCeeding wOuld v! !v! v t

har.e been dif f erent . Strickf and, 466 U.S . at 694; Jac:kson, 811 S.W.2d at 117. A reasonabl-e probability is e r.rrokrakrj a ., .>L,tIII\--LErl I./r\Jr-lc"JJrfr I i fuy otttt i ni a1l tO Undermine COnf idenCe in the out,come. StrickJand, 466 U.S. at 694; Jackson, 811 S.W.2d ^..f- '1'1 1 dL I tL.

In r<=viewinq an ineffective assistance Of counsel- cleiim, there is a strong presumption that couns;e.l- 's conduct f al-1s within the wide range of reasorlable professional- assiStance and the appel-1ant must overcome the presLrmption that the chal-lenged conduct might be considered sound trial strategy. Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at.

B1.1; StrickTand, 466 U.S. at 5B9. Any allegation of ineffect.j.veness must be firmly founded and affirmat--Lve1y d.ernonstra.ted in the record to overcome this presumpl-ion.

Thnmnson..

Lll\JI.LIJ9vll,. I S.W.3d at 813; see Jackson, B-/'l S -W- 2d at 17'.L . It is the Appellant 's burden to prove inef f ect j-ve asrsisLance of counsel by a preponderance of the evidence -

rd. At the guilt phase of her t.rial wherein she en'[ered - d ^'r n= nr \J.L \\.rrri I f rz| " ,'.Y.F AnDelIant waS informed by the trial Prt:a YLILLvI

court of her right to plead "not guiJ-ty" and have the case tried before a jury. RR2 p. 6. At no point during rnr' nf arr] \J r fhr: uf r\:l rrrr'r-oadinrrq I/! vvsEurrrY u ri-p1 this CaUSe di<l Appel-lant aSSeft. to the 1-rial- court that she was unhappy with the nor,'formence encl rcnre.sent.ation of her trial vg!. !v!ILLqrrvv urrv ! vI/r counselr Mr- Choy" Appellant also swore Lo the statement contained in the written plea admonishments that Appellant was sat.isfied wit.h trial counsel/ s represent.ation. CR p. B.

AppeIlant pleaded guilty freely and voluntarily eLfter bei-ng properly admonished of the pun j-shment range, RR2

p. 5-10; CR p. 1. Based on this record, ho legitj-mate non-frivolous basis exists to argue trial counsel waS

consLitutionally ineffecLive at the or-lginal guilty plea .\r rrrrn'i ehmon1- nhase of AnnelIantt.s L-,'I l'JLTlIT\)I.LILLSII U } TIgJU V! trial .

STATEMENT OE. ATTORNEY TO TH!: COURT

This brlef 1s filed by counsel appointed by the court fu\Jn rFnreJ,icn+ rsyrsi)srru 7\^6^'r ^^ {- 'r f1'lrl-/E-L-LCT.IIL ^n \J1r =nnaa o'yIJVo.-r l_ in aCCofdance With Anclers v. Cal-if ornia, 3B 6 U. S . 738 (7961) , and Currie v. State, 5L6 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App"I9l 4). Counsel- has al-so fil-ed with this Court a Motion to Withdraw as Court 7\nnn.i nFnA f1'PI/'\J-LrrLUL,l r'an"naa'l \-\J(lrrDg-L \J1r fl.I-iysO.r ^'tl.eAl wi w-L fLrr h JL]yy\-/! r+'iL-JrlV n^ ^XhibitS E. in

accordance with the procedures as standards set out in Jef-fery v. State,903 S.W.2d 716 (Tex.App.-Dallas L995, no pet. ) . After thorough examination of the clerk's record and reporter' s record, counsel can find no point of error that can be supported by the record. Counsel- has discr"rssed the evidence and the documents in the rcr-ord - r-i I i nr-r rof arAnr-eS to the f eCOf ClS . rvvv!v, v.! 9!rrY

l4 PR,;AYER

Wherefore/ premlses considered, the undersi_gned counsel requests the Court of Appeals review the record on appea-L, consider the Motion to Withdraw as Court Appointed Counsel- with supporting affidavit, review the for:egoing Brief in Support of Mot.ion to Wi-thdraw, and greLnt Lhe Motion to Withdraw.

Raqrracf frr'l'l rz qrrl.rmi 1- 'l-ad U UVV'

SBOT No. 2406997 6 736-A Hwy 259 N.

Kilgore, TX 15662 Phone: 903-65 4-3362 Fax: 817-B B7-4333 Email: j e f f t j acksonl.awGgmail . com Af f orna\l !!UUvLr!vJ fn- LvL AnnaT l tnf ,11f^)IJV-L-LO.rtC f DENISE GAIL DOOLEY

CERTIFICATE OF COMPIIANCE The foregoj-ng Appellant's Brief is j-n compl-iance with TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i) (2) (B) . The total- number of words contalned in Appellant.'s Brj-ef that are not specifically excl-uded f rom t.he word counL under TEX. R. APP . P. 9 .4 (f) (1) is I,130 words.

SBOT No. 2406991 6 Attorney for AppeJJant, DENISE GAIL DOOLEY

r6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICH

It the undersigned attorney, do hereby certify that a t.rue and correct Copy of the above Motion was served on the State of Texas by maillng same to the District Attorney of Gregg County on April 22, 20L5 .

I further certify that I have mailed a copy of the above Brief and accompanying motion by First Cl-ass Mail, postage paid, to Appel-l-ant, DENISE GAIL DOOLEY, TDCJ No. fPending], at the address listed above on the same d.ate.

rlHlll Jackson

t7