Mark Victor Dheil v. State

ACCEPTED 06-14-00201-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 1/25/2015 4:34:52 PM DEBBIE AUTREY CLERK No. 06-14-00201.-CR FILED IN IhI T,he Sixth Court oll APPeale;6th COURT OF APPEALS Texarkana, lfexas TEXARKANA, TEXAS 1/27/2015 4:34:52 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk D4ARK VTCTOR DHEIL / AptroeL7atzt, v. THE STATE OF TE)IN,S, Ag>igeJ-Iee - Appeals from the 4th Dirstrict Crpurt Rusk CountY, Terxas T:ria1 Court No. CR14-089 AIiTDERS BRIEI' ATTORNEY FOR APPELI,ANT: ileff T. "lackson STBOT No " 2406997 6 7 3 6-A Hw5'1 259 N . I(ilgoren TX 75662 Ithone: 903- 654-3362 I!'ax: 8117-887-4333 oRAL ARGI'MENT NOT REQUESTED L]EST OE. PARTIES AND COI'NSEL APPELLANII: Mark V'ictor Dhei1 TDCiI . 0t9657 67 N'o SID No,. O6344978 Choice Moore Transfer JFaciJ.ity 1700 Nl. EA{ 87 Bonhamr, TX 154L9 Represented at original Plea bY: MR. .fEFF SANDEI1S SBOT No. 24033.153 Ellis & Sanders, PLLC L20 ll . Broadwalg, Suite II2 Tyle:r, TX 1 51 0:2 Phone: 903-593-8084 @appeal bv: Jef f T. Jacksotr SBOT No. 2406997 6 736-A Hwy 259 I\I . Kilgore, TX 15662 Phonr: : 903- 65 4'-3362 Fax: 817-BB7-4333 APPELLEE:I Sltate of Texas Represent,ed at ori-gina1 plea arrd sentenci-ng by: Micheal E. Jim,=rson Rusk County District AttorneY SBOT : 00'7 89406 115 N. Main St . Henderson, TX 7 5652 Phone : 903- 6It1-2265 Fax: 903- 6ai'7 -0329 TABLE OF CONTENTS Lt_st of Parties and Counsel.. .."'i Table of f-nnj- VVfIUVTIUJ.anl- q. . . . ii Index of Authorities iv Statement of the Ca.se " "vi Issues Presented. '"'vii 1 Statement. of Facts... ""'r- Summary of the ArguLment.s . - " "2 Argument... " '4 I. APPELLANT' S PLEA OF GUILTY COMPL:TED W]TH THE REQUIF{EMENTS OF ARTICLE 26 'L::i OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRTMINAL PROCEDURE . . . .4 II. NO OBJECT]:ON TO THE EVIDI]NCE OR EXHIBITS WERE MADE DURING THE PUN]-SHMENT STAGE OF TRIAL AND NO MqRITORIOIJS LEGA.L CLAIM EXISTS RIILATED TO THE IMPOSI'IION OF PUNISHMENT . . .7 III. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL IS NOT A V]I\BLE CLAIM BASED ON TH]l RECORD BEFORE THIS COURT 9 IV. NO OTHER ARGUABLE ERROR WAI] COMMIT':IED . .T2 StatemenL of Attorney to the Court ' ' "L4 Conclusion and PasrTet ..--15 Certificate of l,nmnli:nna \/\JlttP-L-LCrrr\-s .....16 Certificate of Service.. --.-.1'1 111 IIIDEX OF AUTHORIT]IES Cas,e Law: Anders v. Cal-if orni.a, 386 U.S. 738,'744, (1967)- -1, 2, 1-3 Brady v. United States, 391 IJ.S. 742, "749, (1970). 5 Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.I914). IJ Fuentes v. State, q 5BB l3.W.2d 542,, 544 (Tex.Crim.APP 1985) Hernandez v. State,' 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex.Crim.APP,. 1986) v Jack v. State, glr s.w.2d 74t (Tex . Cr . App . L97 4,) Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 71 1 (Tex. Crim.APP .I994) \, 10 Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W. 716 (Iex.App.-Dallas 1-995, ho pet. ) '3, 13 Strickl-and v. Wash-Lngton, q 1n 466 u.S" 668 (1984). . Jt Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d B0B, BL2 (Tex-Cri-m-App-1999) .9, 10 Unj-ted States v. JE\.l . RR pp. 6-10; KK pp. aa,an 26-zY. f f IU of nlcns is ^nnel ant/ r- l,- volLlntarine s s; v! I s I/rvsL, sl:rown 1-.r vJ z L IlE^ record. RR p " 6-10. II. NO OBJECTION TO EV]DENCE OR EXHIBITS ]I\]AS MADE DURING THE PUNISHMENT STAGE OF TRIAL AND NO MERI:IORIOUS LEGAL CLAIM EXISTS RELATED TO THE IMPOI]ITION OF PUNISHMENT. On t.he :-lt]" day of October , 2014, Appellant's plea rrf rrrri I i-Uyrz \ar.-o WCIJ arl =nnanl- us\f, A\-\-Ey l-rrz v J furrs ho tri u! ! ] COUft,, RR pp. 6- uI I |.l-Lr "1 1n On that same duy, Appel-lant.'s pullishment was assessed. RR pp. 28-29 . The only eviden.ce presented bV the State was a presentence investigati-on report that had been conducted by the Rr-rsk County community supervis j-on depart.ment j-n accorda.nce with Tex. Code Crim. P. Art. 42.I2 SS 9(a), (g)- RR p" 10. Appellant called One witness, and bot.h sides made a closing argument ., RR pp . 6-28. Appellant made no ob j ection to evidence or exhibits of f ered by the sta.Le, and the trial judge sentenced Appellant to four (4) years to serve in the institutional division of TDCJ. RR pp. 28-29. The trial court was the fact finder for purposes of the punishment, decis j-on. The evidence befo.re the court was substantial. The judge's remarks following the cl-oseof evidence indicate the circumstances taken in r consideration related to the sentence assessed i-n open court. KK p. zY. AA III. ]NE F]IECT ]VE ASSISTANCE OF TRIA], COUNSE:L IS NOT A VIABLE CLAIM BASED UPON THE RECORD BEFORE THIS COURT Clalrns of ineffective assistance of counsel are ane srrs+J I ttz.ed sve rrnder the two-prong test set ouL by the United States Supreme CourL in Strickf ancl v. Washington, 466 u. s. 668 (1984 ) t -nA d-IIL,l =Ann{- 66l A\l\-/YUs\r krrz T(rxF PI r\r^sr S in Hef nandeZ V. State , '7 26 S.W.2d 53, 51 (Tex.Crllm.App-1986) - AppeIlant- must show that. trial- counsel-'s performance was def ici-enL, that is, counsel' s representation f el-l below an objective standard of realionableness. Thompson v. State,, 9 S"W.3d BOB, BI2 (Tex.Crj-m-App.1999)' Anncl I ant must also show that counsel..'s def icient narfrrrm-arr..a I./(=r rv!rllqrrve nror -y- vJ rrri'i r:ccl his defense. Strickfand, 466 U. S . at 68-l ; Jackson v. State,871 S.W"2d 168,11I (Tex. Crirn.App .1994) . This requ:Lres Appellant show there is a reasonable probability the;Lt, but f or counsel-'s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694; Jackson, Bll S.Vf.2d ert 77I- A reasonabl-e probability j-s a probability suf f icient iEo undermine confidence in the outcome. StrickTand, 466 U. S. at 694; Jackson, 871 S"W.2d at 11I. In reviewinq an ineffective assistance of counsef claim, Lhere is a strong presumption t.hilt Counsel 's conduct f alls wit.hin the wide l:ange of reasonable professiqnal assistance and the apF,ellant must overcome the pres'umption that the chal-lenged conduct might be cons j-dererd sound trial- strategy. Thompson,' 9 S . W. 3d at 813; StrickTand, 466 U. S. at 689. Any allegation of inef f ecti-veness mus t be !f fr !rLLrJ rfr | \7 f ,cunded and af f irmat j-veIy demonstrated j-n the record to overcome t,his presumption. Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813; see Jackson, 871 S.W.2d at, 11I. It is the Appel-lant 's burden to'prove ineffective assistance of counsel- by a prepondel:ance of the evldence. Id- Atthequilt/innocencephase.lfhist.rialwherein he entered. a plea of "gui LLy , " Appellant was informed 10 by the tr:j-al- court of his various choices :::egardi-ng his rights to plead "not guilty" and the presumption of innocencer and applicabl-e burden of proof . RR pp. 6-10. Af n/a nn.in1- rlrrrinrr vu--.,y Fn\/ ^f \JJ- rlra LLIs nrna6'p6linCrS yr\-/\/t;surrrye in f,-tr this CaUSe f\L IIU F)U-LIf L r-li.l Annel I ant aSSert to the tri-a-L court that he VIV was unhappy \Mj-th t.he performance and representatj-on of his trial co'unsel, Mt . Sanders . Appell-ant pl.eaded guilty freel-y alld voluntarily after being proper1-y admonished of the prunishment range, RR pp. 6-10. Based on t,his -n^n-A Ig\-L./I\rt nA IIv legitimate non-f rivolous basi.s exists to :rrrr'ra s!Yuv i- r-i :l counsel was constitutionally ineffect'ive. 11 IV. NO OTHER ARGUABLE ERROR WAS COMMI]'TED Counsel has scrutini-zed the ::ecord and f ound no arguabl_e error . There are no j urisdictional def ects - There are no non- j urisdictional def ects a:rising at or ant-rrr -€rar E.tr o.I LgI t-J- y ho nl ea. r'.,f t.uf,rv v! See Jack v. State.>, BlI S.W.2d 1 4t (Tex . Cr " App . Lgl 4) . The indic L.menL was suf f icient to suppor:t the convict ion - CR, p' 5' Because this appeal- stems from Appel-l-ant's entry of a plea of "Gui lty" and a rath,er brie:f punishment hearing, ho mot j-ons were made by Appell-ant at the trial- level, a.nd. no pretrial rulings etdverse to Appellant were made. Appellant. was found competent. RR pp. 9- 10. There was evidence to support; Appell-ilnt's plea of "Guilty.''' RR pp. 6-1 . No fundamer:rtal- error existed at any point during the trial . The tr::ial court's cer:tificiation of Defendant's Right of Appeal was inaccura'te, CR p. 36, and the tria.I court ,amended it to reflect its certification of Appellant's right to t2 appeal . SCR' p. 3. The written Judgment Nlunc Pro Tunc reflectedi the sentence that was imposed and credit toward thLat sentence was properly al?pfied, lscR p- 4-6- 13 STATEIVIENT OF ATTORNEY TO THE COUTTT This brief is f iled by counsel appolnted by the court to represent appellant on arppeal i:n accordance with Anders v. Cal-ifornia, 385 U.S. 738 (1961), and currie v. state, 516 S.W.2d 684l (Tex"Cr.App-t974). Counsel has also f if ed with this Court a Mot'ion to withdraw as court Appoint.ed cou.nsel- orx Appeal in accordance with the procedures as standards set out in Jef'f ery \/. State, 903 S.W. 2d 11 6 (llex.App " --Dallas ]-995 , no pet. ) . thorough examina.t j-on of the clerk' s Af ter record and reporter's record, counsiel can f ind no point of error that can be supported by the record' Counsel has discussed t,he evidence and the documents in t'he ra^r'rrril IgU\Jl-\lt r--i urrr\J \/I rof crences to the records I i nrr rv!v - t4 PRAYER Whe re fore , premises considered, t.he undersigned counsel requests the Court of Appeals revj-ew the record on appeal, consider the Motion t.o Withdraw as Court Appointed Counsel with supporting a.f f j-davit., review the foreqoing Brief in Support of Moti-on to Wi-thdraw, and grant the Motion to Withdraw- RespecLfully submittedi, SBOT No. 2406991 6 136-A Hwy 259 N. Kilgore, TX 1f;662 Phone: 903-65 4-3362 Fax: BI7 -BB7-4333 Email: jef ftjacksonlarnrGgmail- - com Attorney for APPelTant:, Mark Victor Dheif 15 CERTTFICATE OF COMPT,TANCE The foregoing Appellant's Brief is in compliance with TEX. R. APP. P. g .4 (i) (2) (B) . The total number of words contained in Appel-lant' s llrief ttrat' are not speci f i cal Iy excl-uded f rom t,he word count under TEX ' R ' APP. P. 9.4 (i) (1) is 1,555 words- Jef f T. Jeickson SBOT No. 24069976 Atto rney f o r APPe lant -'L , Ma rk Victo r D.he if 16 CERTTFICATE OF SER\/ICE II the undersigned attorney, do he::eby certify that a true and correct copy of the above Motion was served ol:t the State of Texas by mailing same to the District Attorney of Rusk County on January 26, 2015 - I further certj-fv that I have mai-led a. copy of the above Brief by First class Mait, Postage paid, to Appell-ant, Mark Victor Dheil, at the ad'Cress list'ed above on the same date. /// /t 4kr Jeff T. Jackson 17