|
|
|
|
Opinion filed September 27, 2007
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-07-00017-CR
__________
WILLIAM LOUIS LEBLANC, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 50th District Court
Baylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 5265
O P I N I O N
The trial court convicted William Louis LeBlanc, upon his plea of guilty, of possession of pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine. Appellant also entered pleas of true to both enhancement allegations. A plea bargain agreement was not entered. The trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for life. We affirm.
I. Background Facts
There is no challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The record reflects that, after a hearing, the trial court overruled appellant=s motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the execution of a Ano knock@ search warrant.
Appellant then entered his plea of guilty and pleas of true. In open court, the trial court extensively admonished appellant concerning the consequences of his plea and questioned both appellant and his counsel about appellant=s decision to enter a guilty plea. Appellant was also admonished in writing and signed both a judicial confession and a stipulation of evidence. Appellant=s trial counsel signed the written admonishments. The trial court signed the written admonishments and the stipulation of evidence.
Mary Carline Griffin testified that she owned the house and had leased it to appellant. John H. Wilkerson, Jr., the narcotics officer for the Seymour Police Department, testified that he executed the search warrant. Appellant and a female companion were the only people present when the police arrived. The couple were on the bed, and appellant was not fully clothed at the time.
Officer Wilkerson found a white plastic bucket containing 249 pseudoephedrine pills and two packages of Energizer lithium batteries, four cans of Prestone starting fluid, a can of petroleum distillate, a bottle of Vitablend, both used and unused hypodermic needles, a set of digital scales, small plastic bags, marihuana, pipes for smoking marihuana, a pipe for smoking methamphetamine, a small bag of filters, three metal measuring spoons, and a box of shop rags. Officer Wilkerson testified that some of the pseudoephedrine pills were marked Afor prescription only@ and that what he found Atold [him] that somebody was about to cook methamphetamine.@
Eight counterfeit driver=s licences were also recovered. All but one of the licenses featured appellant=s picture. Seventeen individual checks and two checkbooks were also found. All of the checks and both checkbooks had been reported as stolen.
The State introduced pen packets showing appellant=s Arkansas convictions for arson and theft, his 1990 Harris County conviction for possession of cocaine, his 1993 Tarrant County conviction for possession of methamphetamine, his 1997 Tarrant County conviction for possession of amphetamine, and his 2002 Grimes County conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. Appellant testified that since 1984 he had been convicted seven times, that he had been to the penitentiary five times, and that none of his convictions involved violence. Appellant told the trial court that he knew he deserved to go to prison for the present offense and did not deserve another chance but asked the trial court to give him Aa chance to come out with [his] head up.@
After the trial court assessed a life sentence, appellant requested that new counsel be appointed for an appeal. Appellate counsel filed a motion for new trial contending that appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial. Attached to the motion was appellant=s handwritten, unsworn declaration pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 132.001-.003 (Vernon 2005). Appellate counsel also requested a hearing on the motion. The trial court denied a hearing on the motion, and the motion was overruled by operation of law.
II. Sole Issue
In his sole issue on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it failed to conduct a hearing on his motion for new trial. We disagree.
III. Analysis
A. Standards of Review
It is well-settled that a trial court abuses its discretion when it refuses to conduct a hearing on a proper motion for new trial when a hearing is timely requested and the supporting documentation raises matters not determinable from the record. Wallace v. State, 106 S.W.3d 103, 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Martinez v. State, 74 S.W.3d 19, 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 569 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d 664, 665 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812, 815-16 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). While the supporting documentation is not required to establish a prima facie case, the documentation must reflect reasonable grounds upon which relief could be granted. Wallace,106 S.W.3d at 108; Martinez,74 S.W.3d at 21; King, 29 S.W.3d at 569; Jordan, 883 S.W.2d at 665; Reyes, 849 S.W.2d at 816. Defendants are not entitled to hearings to conduct Afishing expeditions.@ King, 29 S.W.3d at 569. The allegations in the supporting documentation must be sufficient to put the trial court on notice and not merely conclusory in nature; if not, the documentation is deficient. Jordan, 883 S.W.2d at 665.
B. Appellant=s Claims in His Supporting Documentation
In his statement, appellant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective because trial counsel did not advise him of the potential risks and benefits of entering a guilty plea, because counsel did not do what appellant asked him to do, and because trial counsel did not explain state and federal law to him. Appellant asserted that counsel never visited him and never wrote him. Appellant stated that he filed two written requests for new counsel and made one oral request for new counsel because he was not satisfied with his trial counsel. Appellant further stated that he was innocent of the charge and that trial counsel never gave any specifics on how they would defend his case. Appellant said that his trial counsel told him that Athe [S]tate >had my ass=@ and that A[t]hose farmers are going to give you a life sentence.@ Appellant concluded his statement with the allegation that, had his trial counsel explained the law and Athe pros and cons@ of testifying, he would not have entered the guilty plea.
C. Was the Supporting Documentation Sufficient to Entitle Appellant to a Hearing?
The supporting documentation contained conclusory statements and did not make reasonable allegations upon which relief could be granted. As such, the documentation was deficient. Id. The record before this court does not support appellant=s contentions that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a hearing on the motion for new trial. In fact, the record supports the State=s contentions that appellant received effective representation by trial counsel and that his pleas were knowingly and voluntarily entered. Trial counsel filed numerous and appropriate pretrial motions and actively represented appellant through out the proceedings. The trial court sufficiently admonished appellant. The sole issue is overruled.
IV. Holding
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
RICK STRANGE
JUSTICE
September 27, 2007
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.