IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
JUNE 5, 2007
______________________________SABAS RODRIGUEZ,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY; NOS. A15790-0411; A15791-0411; B15950-0503; HON. ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., PRESIDING _______________________________
Memorandum Opinion ______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Sabas Rodriguez (appellant) appeals three judgments revoking his community supervision. He was originally convicted of forgery and theft via a plea bargain and received a sentence of two years in a state jail facility. His sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation for five years. Subsequently, the State filed two separate motions to revoke that probation. The second resulted in its revocation and his incarceration for two years. Appellant timely noticed his appeal. His appointed counsel then moved to withdraw, after filing a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and representing that he had searched the record and found no arguable grounds for reversal. The motion and brief illustrated that appellant was informed of his rights to review the appellate record and file his own brief. So too did we inform appellant that any pro se response or brief he cared to file had to be filed by May 31, 2007. To date, appellant has filed no pro se response or brief.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed one potential area for appeal that concerned the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's determination to revoke appellant's probation. However, counsel explained how "the overwhelming weight of the evidence does not appear to require reversal."
So too did we conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there existed reversible error and found none. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring us to conduct an independent review). Since no appeal was taken within 30 days from the date of appellant's guilty plea and original conviction, we have no jurisdiction over any purported error arising from or prior to the plea hearing. Manuel v. State, 944 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); see Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Moreover, appellant pled true to more than a majority of the grounds upon which the State sought to revoke his probation. Finding any one ground to exist entitled the trial court to grant the State's motion. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Finally, the punishment levied was within the range provided by statute.
Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
eption Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
NO. 07-04-0077-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
JULY 19, 2010
______________________________
DALE SUE JONES AND STANLEY RAY JONES, APPELLANTS
V.
TED SCOTT, M.D., APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 72ND DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO.2001-513;918; HONORABLE J. BLAIR CHERRY, JR., JUDGE[1]
_______________________________
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
ORDER
By an order issued July 7, 2010, this Court addressed the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, filed on June 3, 2010, by the Appellee, Dr. Ted Scott. Furthermore, due to the death of Appellant, Dale Sue Jones, this Court found that a licensed attorney was required to represent the interests of her estate in this appeal. In the course of attempting to summarize the procedural history of this case, we concluded that New Reflections, a defendant below, was not a party to this appellate proceeding. Based upon that statement, New Reflections sought to withdraw its Motion of Appellee to Extend Time to File Brief, which was filed on the same day our order was issued. Having investigated this matter further, we conclude that we were mistaken in our conclusion that New Reflections was not properly before this Court.
A review of the First Supplemental Clerk's Record reveals that a Notice of Intent to Appeal (See Appendix 1) was filed, giving notice of Appellants' intent to appeal the order of the trial court issued on November 6, 2003, granting New Reflections's Motion for Summary Judgment, pertaining to Appellants' DTPA cause of action against New Reflections. Although this notice of appeal was filed with the trial court clerk on November 17, 2003, it was inadvertently not forwarded to this Court until July 7, 2004. Therefore, although it predates the notice of appeal that initiated this cause (See Appendix 2), it does constitute proper notice of appeal as to Appellants' DTPA cause of action against New Reflections. Therefore, we withdraw that portion of our prior order of July 7, 2010, pertaining to the status of Appellants' claims against New Reflections, and hereby clarify that New Reflections is a party to this proceeding. Despite the request to withdraw New Reflections's Motion of Appellee to Extend Time to File Brief, we now grant that motion and order that Appellee, New Reflections, have until August 6, 2010, to file its brief in response to Appellants' Brief in Chief filed by Appellant, Stanley Jones.
In accordance with our order of July 7, 2010, a brief presenting the merits of Dale Sue Jones's claims is due to be filed in this Court on or before October 4, 2010. By order of this Court, Appellee, New Reflections, is sua sponte granted an extension of time in which to file its brief in response to the claims of Dale Sue Jones until thirty days after her brief, if any, is filed.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
[1]Hon. Richard Dambold, (Ret.), sitting by assignment. Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. '75.002(a)(3) (Vernon 2005).