Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Thomas J. Davis was charged with indecency with a child by exposure. He entered a guilty plea on Aug. 31, 1999. The trial court deferred adjudication on Sept. 9, and Davis was placed on community supervision for two years. On May 24, 2001, pursuant to the trial court’s sua sponte “supervision review” of sex offenders subject to community supervision in that court, Davis said in a hearing that he had consulted with a lawyer when he learned of his supervision review hearing, and that it was all right to proceed without an attorney. As the May 24 hearing continued, Davis’ attending physician, Dr. Voris, indicated that he thought Davis could benefit from at least another three months of treatment, and the state recommended a year. The trial court rejected Davis’ request to limit any extension to three months and, instead, extended community supervision for an additional year. On Feb. 13, 2002, the state moved to modify the order, requesting a two-year extension of community supervision, which the trial court granted. The modifications included requirements for Davis to submit to urinalysis for drug and alcohol use, to get sex offender counseling and to take Antabuse. The state’s filed a motion to revoke on Sept. 19, 2002. It alleged five violations of the Feb. 13 order, including being found with beer and discontinuing Antabuse. Davis pleaded true to three of the counts and admitted much of the conduct. The trial court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to 10 years in prison. On Oct. 17, 2002, the trial court adjudicated Davis guilty, revoked his community supervision and sentenced him to 10 years in prison. Davis filed a timely, pro se notice of appeal. The 13th Court of Appeals, after motions for reconsideration and en banc consideration, abated the proceedings and ordered the record be supplemented with the trial court’s certification of Davis’ right to appeal. The trial court’s certification indicated that this was not a plea-bargain case and that Davis had the right to appeal. It was filed with the court clerk’s supplemented record on Feb. 9, 2004, and the 13th Court reinstated the appeal. Meanwhile, on March 25, 2003, Davis’ court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, concluding that Davis’ arguments on appeal were frivolous. Davis was granted additional time to file his pro se brief, which he filed on Feb. 23, 2004. In it, he questioned why he was not discharged from community supervision on Aug. 31, 2001, when he’d completed the two years’ community supervision. The 13th Court, considering the reinstated appeal, found that though the state’s motion to revoke on Sept. 19, 2002, referred to the May 24, 2001, hearing, no transcript or order on that date was in the record. The only order extending Davis’ term in the record was the Feb. 13, 2002, order, more than two years after Aug. 31, 1999. Finding this error noteworthy, the 13th Court again abated the appeal and ordered the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the accuracy of the record. Davis’ newly appointed appellate court attorney was present at the hearing on the accuracy of the record on April 30, 2004, and the 13th Court reinstated the appeal. The record now contains a court reporter’s record from the May 24, 2001, hearing. New appellate counsel was then ordered to analyze the supplemental record and evaluate the trial court’s authority to extend and revoke Davis’ community supervision. The new appellate counsel, however, has also concluded that the appeal is frivolous. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded for dismissal of charges. The court acknowledges that the appeal may require the exercise of the court’s review power over errors unrelated to Davis’ conviction. For instance, if the court’s review reveals that Davis waived his right to appeal the adjudication of his guilt and the revocation of his community supervision, then the court will in turn examine the record for jurisdictional defects and the legality of the sentence imposed. In the absence of a valid waiver of Davis’ right to appeal, the court’s obligation in and Anders-brief setting is to independently review the record for: 1. jurisdictional defects; 2. matters raised by written motion ruled on before trial; 3. matters the trial court granted permission to appeal; and 4. the legality of the sentence imposed as authorized by law. The court, therefore, in its independent review of the record, examines the validity of the written waiver of the right to appeal. The record contains three records purporting to be waivers. The court finds the waivers use “boiler-plate” language. The court further finds that the trial court’s issuance of a certificate of a right to appeal is consistent with a determination that the boiler-plate language is not a valid waiver of the right to appeal. Consequently, the court holds that Davis did not waive his right to appeal. The court then goes on to review possible errors unrelated to Davis’ conviction. Davis filed pre-revocation motions, which he also attempted to waive. However, as these waivers were printed immediately above the right to appeal waivers, they, too are invalid. Davis did, however, fail to preserve error on rulings his pre-revocation motions regarding entitlement to a furlough, and to object to his appointed trial counsel. In his pro se brief, Davis challenges the ability of the trial court to extend a period of supervision within one year after the term expires if the state has filed a motion to revoke in that time frame. The court notes that the state’s only motion to revoke was on Sept. 19, 2002. The May 24, 2001, extension was made sua sponte by the trial court. Consequently, the trial court’s extension was unauthorized and renders any subsequent revocation outside the original period of supervision a nullity. This is an error unrelated to Davis’ conviction, the court adds. Under Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 42.12, �22(c), a trial court can extend community supervision with or without a hearing. Because the trial court here recessed the hearing to allow Davis to consult with his lawyer, the court does not decide whether the right to counsel generally attaches to such a proceeding. The court thus examines whether Davis’ agreement to proceed without counsel anyway was a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. Here, where the trial court appointed counsel, allowed Davis to confer with his attorney during a recess period, and had knowledge that Davis could not afford his own attorney, the trial court should have inquired into Davis’ later attempt to relinquish his right to counsel. The record does not show that Davis made this waiver before the supervision review proceeding knowingly and intelligently. It was further error for the trial court to extend Davis’ supervision beyond what was originally imposed without also admonishing him on the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. The proceeding was void, the court holds, so the Feb. 13, 2002, modification and the Oct. 28, 2002, revocation of community supervision were nullities. The court adds that the state did not file any motion to revoke, continue, or modify Davis’ community supervision before Aug. 31, 2001. Accordingly, the court holds that Davis did not waive his challenge to the trial court’s authority to adjudicate his guilt and revoke his community supervision when he did not object to the May 24, 2001, extension. OPINION:Castillo, J.; Valdez, C.J., Rodriguez and Castillo, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.