Jason Alan Savell v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 97th District Court of Archer County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 2nd District Court of Appeals » 2003 » Jason Alan Savell v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 97th District Court of Archer County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 02-02-00351-CR

Case Date: 03/27/2003

Plaintiff: Castle Texas Oil & Gas Limited Partnership, Delta Petroleum Corporation, and BWAB Limited Liability

Defendant: Dominion Oklahoma Texas Exploration & Production--Appeal from 25th District Court of Lavaca County

Preview:Marcel Sweat v. State of Texas--Appeal from 227th
Judicial District Court of Bexar County
No. 04-00-00549-CR
Marcel SWEAT,
Appellant
v.
STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1993-CR-8122
Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice
Tom Rickhoff, Justice
Paul W. Green, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 19, 2001
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
Marcel Sweat pled guilty to felony theft and was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the
sentenced was suspended, and Sweat was placed on community supervision for ten years. Following the State's motion
to revoke, Sweat pled true to violations of supervision and was sentenced to eight years in prison. Sweat's court-
appointed attorney on appeal filed a brief in which counsel concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit.
Counsel also filed a motion to withdraw.
Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807
(Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Specifically, counsel states
Sweat was provided with a copy of the brief, the motion to withdraw, and the record, and was further informed of his
right to file his own brief if he wished.
Sweat filed a pro se brief in which he claims the terms of his community supervision were so vague as to be
unenforceable. The written terms of supervision, which Sweat signed, require him to report in person to the
Supervision Office of Bexar County once a month or as directed by the Court/Supervision Officer. At the time he was
placed on supervision, Sweat was awaiting transfer to serve a term of imprisonment on another matter. He was
subsequently paroled and then reimprisoned on a violation of parole. When he was finally released, he failed to contact
the Bexar County Supervision Office for three months. Sweat complains that he was never told what to do or how to
report; however, the record shows only that he was required to report once a month in person to his probation officer
in Bexar County. Once Sweat was released from prison, he had the duty to abide by the terms of his community
supervision. This he did not do. We overrule his complaint that the phrase "or as directed by the Court/Supervision
Officer" renders the terms of his supervision unenforceable. See Ross v. State, 594 S.W.2d 100, 102 (Tex. Crim. App.
1980) (direction to report once a month sufficient to inform probationer of duty); Herrington v. State, 534 S.W.2d 331,
334 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976).
Further, the trial court discussed the situation with Sweat at the plea hearing. Sweat was specifically asked whether he
still wished to plead 'not true' or whether he was satisfied that his 'true' plea was correct. Sweat replied that he was not
coerced to plead 'true' and he understood the violation charges.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/14496.html[8/20/2013 7:34:39 PM]

Based on our review of the record , counsel's brief, and Sweat's brief, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without
merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Additionally, we grant the motion to withdraw filed by Soto's
counsel. See Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/14496.html[8/20/2013 7:34:39 PM]

Download 14496.pdf