Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Waymond Anderson A/K/A Waymon Anderson A/K/A Waymon Dwann Anderson v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-15-00258-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; September 30, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Waymond Anderson is the appellant in appellate cause number 13-15-00258-CR, which is under the jurisdiction of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi, Texas. Anderson was initially indicted for Felony Theft on August 6, 2009, and after pleading guilty on September 21, 2009, he was placed on deferred community supervision for two years. His supervision was modified and extended multiple times between 2011 and 2013. On March 18, 2015, the State filed a motion to revoke his community supervision, leading to a revocation hearing on May 12, 2015, where he was sentenced to twenty months in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, State Jail Division. The trial court certified his right to appeal, and counsel was appointed for the appeal on June 2, 2015. Coretta T. Graham represents Anderson on appeal, having filed the brief under Anders v. California, indicating that after reviewing the case, she found no appealable issues. She has also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and does not request oral argument. The brief includes a table of contents, an index of authorities citing relevant cases, and a statement regarding the case and its facts, ultimately concluding with a prayer for relief. No viable legal issues were identified for appeal, as Anderson waived potential arguments by admitting to some violations of his community supervision. The appeal raises two questions: the effectiveness of defense counsel during Anderson's revocation hearing and the possibility of reversible error by the trial court regarding Anderson’s sentence. The revocation hearing occurred on May 12, 2015, where the court confirmed Anderson's identity, reviewed his constitutional rights, discussed potential punishments, and took his plea regarding the alleged violations. The State provided evidence of Anderson’s absconding and drug use, while Anderson testified in his defense. Ultimately, the court found that he had violated the terms of his supervision, leading to a twenty-month incarceration sentence. The Anders appeal asserts that the attorney has thoroughly examined the record and applicable case law but found no grounds to support claims of ineffective counsel. The brief complies with Anders requirements by outlining the relevant facts and legal context, demonstrating no harmful errors occurred during the revocation process. The attorney notes that Anderson was allowed to present his testimony and that his admissions were made voluntarily. Consequently, the attorney seeks permission to withdraw and allows Anderson to submit further briefs if desired. Counsel for the appellant, Waymond Anderson, conducted a thorough review of the records related to his revocation hearing. Key areas examined include the sufficiency of the indictment and any adverse pretrial rulings, with no significant issues identified. Written admonishments were provided to Anderson in accordance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 26.13, covering potential risks, rights, and the nature of the charges. Specific admonishments included the risk of perjury, the right to plead not true, the right to trial and counsel, and the range of punishment, among others. The appellate counsel found no reversible errors in Anderson’s sentencing, which involved a ten-month community supervision sentence for a state jail felony, where the punishment range is from 180 days to two years. No plea bargains are applicable in revocation hearings, and Anderson received credit for time served. In conclusion, following the standards set by Anders v. California and Kelly v. State, the counsel determined that no appealable issues exist and requested to withdraw from the case, asking the Court to rule on the appeal accordingly. Compliance and service certificates were also included, confirming the document's word count and distribution to relevant parties.