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