Mark Anthony Hulsey v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 249th District Court of Somervell County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 10th District Court of Appeals » 2006 » Mark Anthony Hulsey v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 249th District Court of Somervell County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 10-05-00420-CR

Case Date: 12/06/2006

Plaintiff: Ray Charles Hawkins

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County

Preview:Charone Latrell Hardy v. The State of Texas--Appeal
from 230th District Court of Harris County
11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Opinion
Charone Latrell Hardy
Appellant
Vs. No. 11-05-00019-CR -- Appeal from Harris County
State of Texas
Appellee
The trial court convicted Charone Latrell Hardy, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated sexual assault. A plea bargain
agreement was not reached. The trial court assessed punishment at confinement for life. We affirm.
Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which
counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded
that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right
to review the record and file a response to counsel=s brief. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High
v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Gainous v. State,
436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex.App. - Eastland 2005, no pet=n).
Appellant has filed a response in which he contends that he was denied effective assistance during the time period to
file a motion for new trial, that the trial court erred by failing to sua sponte withdraw his plea of guilty, and that his
guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made because the trial court did not properly admonish him concerning
the range of punishment. Appellant states that he would not have entered a plea of guilty and would not have
participated in the presentence investigation report if he had known that he was not eligible for court-ordered
community supervision. Appellant contends that the record supports his statement that both his trial counsel and the
trial court led him to believe that, if he entered an open plea of guilty and participated in the presentence investigation
report, he would be placed on community supervision. The record before this court does not support appellant=s
allegations.
The clerk=s record reflects that the trial court admonished appellant pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art.
26.13 (Vernon Supp. 2004 - 2005) and included an admonishment on the proper range of punishment. The clerk=s
record further reflects that appellant waived a court re-porter at the punishment hearing. Nothing in the record supports
appellant=s contentions that the trial court should have sua sponte withdrawn his guilty plea, that he was not properly
admonished, or that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered.
Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal
is without merit.
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/7956.html[8/20/2013 7:27:46 PM]

PER CURIAM
September 29, 2005
Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, J., and McCall, J.[1]
[1]W. G. Arnot, III, Chief Justice, retired effective July 31, 2005. The chief justice position is vacant.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/7956.html[8/20/2013 7:27:46 PM]

Download 7956.pdf