Desa Wells and All Occupants v. Breton Mill Apartments

Citation: Not availableDocket: 07-01-00320-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 6, 2002; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Desa Wells' appeal against Breton Mill Apartments was initially dismissed due to her failure to pay the filing fee, but was reinstated after she claimed she was misled regarding her indigency affidavit's sufficiency for appellate purposes. Appellant received multiple extensions to file her brief, citing issues with the reporter's record, but failed to meet the final deadline. Despite the court's warnings that further extensions would not be granted unless in extreme circumstances, Wells did not submit her brief or respond to the court's inquiries about the delay. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 

In a separate case, Daymon Lamar Johns was convicted in 2007 of evading arrest with a vehicle and sentenced to two years of confinement, suspended for five years of community supervision. In 2009, he received deferred adjudication for possession of cocaine in a drug-free zone. The State subsequently filed motions to revoke his community supervision in both cases, citing alleged violations.

Appellant admitted to all allegations during the hearing regarding the violation of community supervision conditions. The trial court expressed doubt about Appellant's ability to complete community supervision and revoked it for both cases. The punishment included two years of confinement and a $1,000 fine for cause number 56,483-E, to run consecutively to a nine-year confinement and a $1,000 fine for cause number 58,725-E. Counsel filed an Anders brief, indicating no viable grounds for appeal and requested to withdraw. The court granted this motion and affirmed the decision. Counsel complied with Anders requirements by providing Appellant a copy of the brief and notifying him of his right to respond or file a petition for discretionary review, which Appellant did not do. The standard of review for revocation of community supervision requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and the court can affirm the revocation if any one violation is established. A plea of true supports the revocation order on its own. After reviewing the record, the court agreed with counsel’s assessment that Appellant’s admissions sufficiently supported the revocation, leaving no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

In Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005), the court addressed the judgment revoking community supervision in Cause Number 56,483-E, which ordered the Appellant to pay all court costs without specifying an amount. An attached Bill of Costs, dated after the judgment, indicated total costs of $2,816, including a $1,000 fine, $416 in legislatively mandated costs, and $1,400 for court-appointed attorney's fees, with prior payments of $1,756, resulting in an unpaid balance of $1,060. The court determined there was no assessment of the Appellant's ability to repay the attorney's fees, leading to a conclusion that the judgment incorrectly included these fees, thus overstating court costs by $1,400. As a result, the judgment was reformed to reflect that the court costs had been paid in full. The motion for counsel to withdraw was granted, and the reformed judgment in Cause Number 56,483-E was affirmed, along with the judgment in Cause Number 58,725-E. Additionally, it was noted that counsel must inform the Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review within five days of the opinion's issuance, as per Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 48.4.