                                                                              ACCEPTED
                                                                         13-14-00676-CR
                                                           THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                 CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
                                                                    3/12/2015 3:53:30 PM
                                                                       DORIAN RAMIREZ
                                                                                  CLERK




                                                  FILED IN
                                          13th COURT OF APPEALS
                                       CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
                    NO. 13-14-00676-CR     3/12/2015 3:53:30 PM
 ______________________________________________________
                                            DORIAN E. RAMIREZ
                                                   Clerk
               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
            FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT
         AT CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
 ______________________________________________________
               DEBORAH ALFORD, Appellant
                           VS
              THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 ______________________________________________________
      AN APPEAL FROM THE 94TH DISTRICT COURT
               OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
 ______________________________________________________

             APPELLANT’S ANDERS BRIEF
________________________________________________________

                               PAUL DODSON
                               TX BAR #05942000
                               218 LEMING AVE.
                               CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 78404
                               TEL: 361.364.7415
                               FAX: 361.237.1963
                               PAUL@PAULDODSON.NET

                               ATTORNEY FOR DEBORAH ALFORD
      NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PARTIES

APPELLANT:           Deborah Alford
                     SID# 03731988
                     TDCJ # 01964870
                     Marlin Transfer Facility
                     2893 State Hwy 6
                     Marlin, TX 76661-6588

TRIAL COUNSEL:       Hon. Deeanne Galvan (initial plea)
                     901 Leopard
                     Corpus Christi, Tx 78401

                     Tanya R. Garza (revocation)
                     302 Rosebud
                     Corpus Christi, Texas 78404

APPELLATE COUNSEL:   Paul Dodson
                     218 Leming Ave.
                     Corpus Christi, Tx 78404
                     paul@pauldodson.net

APPELLEE:            The State of Texas
TRIAL COUNSEL:       Hon. Mark Skurka
                     Nueces County District Attorney
                     ADA Lance Watt (plea)
                     ADA Young Min C. Burkett (revoca-
                     tion)
                     901 Leopard
                     Corpus Christi, Tx 78401

APPELLATE COUNSEL:   Hon. Mark Skurka
                     Nueces County District Attorney
                     901 Leopard
                     Corpus Christi, Tx 78401




                         i
              REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

      Appellant does NOT request oral argument at the time of sub-

mission.

                   NOTE ON THE RECORD

Record item                                         Citation in brief

Clerk’s Record                                      C.R.

Supplemental Clerk’s Record                         Suppl. C.R.

Reporter’s Record (Revocation hearing on Novem-     R.R.
ber 3, 2014)

Supplemental Reporter’s Record (Plea hearing sep-   Suppl. R.R.
tember 6, 2006)




                                  ii
                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PARTIES ................................................ i	  
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ................................................................. ii	  
NOTE ON THE RECORD ..................................................................................... ii	  
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ iii	  
LIST OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................... iv	  
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................................................................. vi	  
ISSUE ..........................................................................................................................vii	  
       Is there a colorable issue to raise in this appeal? .......................................... vii	  
STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................... 7	  
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 2	  
ARGUMENT............................................................................................................... 2	  
       Standard for Anders brief .....................................................................................2	  
       Potential issue: charging instruments ................................................................3	  
       Potential issue: pretrial motions .........................................................................4	  
       Potential issue: guilty plea procedures...............................................................4	  
       Potential issue: mental competence ...................................................................6	  
       Potential issue: proof of charges ........................................................................6	  
              Initial possession conviction .......................................................................6	  
              Revocation .....................................................................................................6	  
       Potential issue: punishment ................................................................................8	  
       Potential issue: effective representation ......................................................... 10	  
       Potential issue: fundamental error .................................................................. 11	  
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ..........................................................................................12	  
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..............................................................................13	  
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................13	  
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................. 2	  




                                                                 iii
                                      LIST OF AUTHORITIES

Cases	  
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). ...............................................................2
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991)......................................................... 11
Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) ....................................... 11
Carter v. State, 656 S.W.2d 468 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) .................................... 11
Cobb v. State , 851 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) .......................................6
Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (op. on reh’g) ..........6
Few v. State, 588 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)...........................................3
Furr v. State, 13-14-0008-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 527
    (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).............................7
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) ................................................................ 8, 9
Herrera v. State, 951 S.W.2d 197 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997, no
   pet.) .........................................................................................................................7
In re Shulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Civ. App. 2008) (original
     proceeding) ............................................................................................................3
Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. ref’d)..............3
Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) ........................................7
Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)...............................7
McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) ..................................................3
McNew v. State, 608 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) ....................................9
Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (panel op.) ..................7
Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) ..............................................7
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988)..........................................................................2
Salinas v. State, 163 S.W.3d 734 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ................................... 10
Samuel v. State, 477 S.W.2d 611 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) .....................................9
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) .................................................... 10
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) ................................ 10




                                                               iv
Trevino v. State, 519 S.W.2d 864, 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) ...........................6
Vela v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 7281, 2014 WL 3049482 (Tex.
    App.—Corpus Christi 2014, no pet.) (memo. op) ..........................................9
Wester v. State, 542 S.W.2d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) ......................................6


Statutes	  
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 21.03 ..........................................................................3
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.13 ................................................................. 4, 5, 6
TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.002 ..............................................................4
TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.102 ..............................................................4
TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.112 ......................................................... 3, 8
TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.35 ........................................................................................8




Other Authorities	  
Schmolesky, TEX. CRIM. PRAC. GUIDE § 90.08 ................................................... 11




                                                       v
                    NO. 13-14-00676-CR
 ______________________________________________________
               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
            FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT
         AT CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
 ______________________________________________________
               DEBORAH ALFORD, Appellant
                            VS
              THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 ______________________________________________________
      AN APPEAL FROM THE 94TH DISTRICT COURT
               OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
 ______________________________________________________

             APPELLANT’S ANDERS BRIEF
________________________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

      Counsel for Appellant Deborah Alford files this Anders brief in

these consolidated appeals.



                  STATEMENT OF THE CASE

NATURE OF THE CASE            Defendant was charged with possession of
                              cocaine in Cause # 06-CR-2619-C. She was
                              placed on community supervision, which was
                              revoked in 2014 when she pled true to a mo-
                              tion to revoke her probation.

TRIAL JUDGE                   Hon. Bobby Galvan

TRIAL COURT/COUNTY            94th District Court, Nueces County




                                    vi
DISPOSITION IN THE           The trial court revoked Defendant’s commu-
TRIAL COURT                  nity supervision in the possession case, and
                             adjudicated guilt on a robbery charge. De-
                             fendant was sentenced to two years in the
                             state jail on the possession conviction and
                             three years’ imprisonment on the robbery
                             conviction.

                             Defendant appealed the possession case and
                             the robbery case (13-15-00681).


                                  ISSUE

       Is there a colorable issue to raise in this appeal?


                     STATEMENT OF FACTS

       In 2006, Alford pled guilty to delivery of cocaine. She was sen-

tenced to two years of state jail time, with her sentence probated for

three years. C.R. 37. Her community service on this charge was extended

five times:

Date of order     New termination date           Record reference
  4/10/08               9/6/11                   C.R. 61, 63
  7/14/11               9/6/12                   C.R. 93
  12/7/11               9/6/13                   C.R. 107
  8/14/13               9/6/14                   C.R. 110
  8/20/14               9/6/15                   Suppl. C.R. 5




                                     vii
       In October 2014, the State moved the trial court to revoke her

community service. C.R. 124. At the hearing, the State asked the trial

court to sentence Alford to two years in state jail on the possession

charge and three years’ imprisonment on another charge. R.R. 8. Al-

ford’s counsel requested reinstatement of probation on both charges.

R.R. 8-9. The trial court followed the State’s recommendations on revo-

cation and sentencing. R.R. 10.


                   SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

       An appeal in this case would be frivolous as there are no colorable

issues to raise.



                              ARGUMENT

Issue restated: Is there a colorable issue to raise in this appeal?

       Standard for Anders brief. The attorney’s role as an advocate

requires that counsel support a client’s appeal to the best of his or her

ability. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A defendant's right to

assistance of counsel, however, does not included the right to have an

attorney urge frivolous or unmeritorious claims on appeal. Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83-84 (1988). An attorney may not properly make



                                      2
frivolous arguments to a court. McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429,

436 (1988); In re Shulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 fn 8 (Tex. Crim. App.

2008) (original proceeding). The purpose of an Anders brief is to ensure

that counsel has carefully reviewed the trial record and thoroughly re-

searched the law before deciding that the appeal is frivolous. Id, at 439.

Counsel must resolve all doubts and ambiguous legal questions in favor

of his or her client and file an Anders brief only if there are no argu-

ments that could conceivably persuade the court. Id. , at 444; Johnson v.

State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. ref’d)


       Potential issue: charging instruments. An indictment should

allege all that the State is required to prove. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

art. 21.03. An indictment drafted in the language of the statute defining

an offense is ordinarily sufficient. Few v. State, 588 S.W.2d 578, 583

(Tex. Crim. App. 1979).

       Possession of controlled substance. Pursuant to TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE § 481.112(a), except as authorized, “a person commits an

offense if the person knowingly manufactures, delivers, or possesses

with intent to deliver a controlled substance listed in Penalty Group 1.”

“Controlled substance” means “a substance, including a drug, an adul-

terant, and a dilutant, listed in … Penalty Groups 1, 1-A, or 2 through


                                      3
4. The term includes the aggregate weight of any mixture, solution, or

other substance containing a controlled substance.” TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE § 481.002(5). “Penalty Group 1” includes cocaine. Id.,

§ 481.102(3)(D). “Deliver” means “to transfer, actually or constructive-

ly, to another a controlled substance…. The term includes offering to

sell a controlled substance, counterfeit substance, or drug parapherna-

lia.” TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.002(8).

        The possession indictment alleges that Alford

        on or about MARCH 11, 2006, in Nueces County, Texas, did then
        and there knowingly and intentionally make an actual transfer or a
        constructive transfer of COCAINE, a controlled substance listed in
        Penalty Group 1 of the Texas Controlled Substances Act, to
        TODD BEACH, and that the amount transferred was, by aggregat-
        ed weight, including any adulterants or dilutants, less than one
        gram….

Because this indictment tracks the statutory language, the charging instrument

is legally sufficient.


        Potential issue: pretrial motions. No pretrial motions were filed

on behalf of Alford in this case.


        Potential issue: guilty plea procedures. A judge accepting a

plea of guilty or no contest is required to provide certain statutory ad-

monishments. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.13(a). A judge may do so




                                       4
orally or in writing. If in writing, there must be a statement signed by

the defendant and his attorney that he understands the admonishments

and is aware of the consequences of his plea. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

art. 26.13(d). Substantial compliance is sufficient, in the absence of an

affirmative showing by the defendant that he was not aware of the con-

sequences of his plea and that he was mislead or harmed by the admon-

ishment of the court. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.13(c).

      The record shows substantial compliance with the admonish-

ment requirements in all three cases:

(1) range of punishment                        C.R. 15
                                               R.R. 7
(2) recommendation of the prosecuting          C.R. 12
attorney as to punishment is not binding
on the court
(3) in plea agreement, the trial court must    C.R. 14, 19, 20, 27
give its permission before the defendant
may prosecute an appeal on any matter in
the case except for those matters raised by
written motions filed prior to trial
(4) consequences of non-citizenship            Defendant is a U.S. citi-
                                               zen.
                                               C.R. 19

(5) sex offender registration requirements     Not in issue.




                                     5
       Potential issue: mental competence. A guilty plea may not be

accepted unless the defendant is mentally competent and the plea is free

and voluntary. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.13(b). Alford and her

counsel indicated that Alford was competent and had freely made his

plea. CR 18, 21, Suppl. R.R. 4-5; R.R. 5-6.


       Potential issue: proof of charges. There was no error in the

proof of the charges against Alford.

       Initial possession conviction. The defendant’s judicial confession

admitting all elements of the offense is sufficient evidence to support a

conviction. Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343, 353 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)

(op. on reh’g); Trevino v. State, 519 S.W.2d 864, 866 (Tex. Crim. App.

1975). Alford judicially confessed to this charge. C.R. 28. The police re-

ports introduced, without objection, also supported the charge. C.R. 31

et seq., Suppl. R.R. 6.

       Revocation. Whether to revoke community supervision rests

within the discretion of the trial court. Wester v. State, 542 S.W.2d 403,

405 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). The burden of proof in a probation revo-

cation is measured by a preponderance of the evidence. Cobb v. State,

851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Appellate review of evi-



                                       6
dence presented at a revocation hearing is in the light most favorable to

the trial court's decision. Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1979).

       In its motion to revoke probation, the State’s allegations included

Alford’s submission of positive urine analysis for cocaine. C.R. (rob-

bery) 94. She pled true to at least one violation, including the positive

urine tests. C.R. 116; R.R. 7. In reviewing a probation revocation, a sin-

gle violation of probation is sufficient to support the trial court's deci-

sion to revoke. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App.

1980) (panel op.); Solis v. State, 13-14-0008-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS

527, *1 fn 1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op.);

Herrera v. State, 951 S.W.2d 197, 199 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997,

no pet.).

       Limited review. An appellant may not appeal matters relating to

the original plea proceeding after his community supervision has been

revoked and an adjudication of guilt formally made. Manuel v. State,

994 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The two limited excep-

tions to this principle are the “void judgment” exception and the “ha-

beas corpus” exception. Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664, 667 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2001). Neither exception applies here.


                                      7
      Potential issue: punishment. The trial court imposed punish-

ment in accord with statutory requirements.

          • Alford was sentenced to two years for possession. De-
            livery of a controlled substance in Penalty Group 1 is a
            state jail felony if the amount of the controlled sub-
            stance is, by aggregate weight, including adulterants or
            dilutants, less than one gram. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY
            CODE § 481.112(b). In this case, an individual adjudged
            guilty of a state jail felony may be punished by confine-
            ment in a state jail for any term of not more than two
            years or less than 180 days. TEX. PENAL CODE §
            12.35(a).
          • The trial court also fined her $1,500. C.R. (possession)
            37. The revocation judgment, however, did not include
            a fine. C.R. 122.

The sentence is within the range of punishment for the charge.

      The United States Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual

punishment.” U.S. CONST. amend. VIII. “Embodied in the Constitu-

tion’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments is the ‘precept of justice

that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to

[the] offense.’” Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 59 (2010). Proportionality

contests include challenges to the length of term-of-years sentences

given circumstances in a particular case. Id. In these challenges, courts

analyze the claim with a threshold comparison of the gravity of the of-

fense and severity of the sentence. Only in the “rare case,” where the



                                     8
threshold comparison suggests gross disproportionality will the courts

then compare the defendant’s sentence with the sentences received by

other offenders in the same jurisdiction and with the sentences imposed

for the same crime in other jurisdictions. Id.

      In these appeals, Alford’s offenses allowed punishment in the

range imposed on her. When the punishment assessed is within the

range of punishment established by the legislature, there is no violation

of the constitutional provisions against cruel and unusual punishment.

McNew v. State, 608 S.W.2d 166, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Samuel v.

State, 477 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). The judgments ad-

judicating guilt reflect the same sentence that the court imposed at the

hearings. R.R. 7; C.R. 37, R.R. 10; C.R. 122.

      There is no evidence from the record to suggest the 534 days

credited on the possession charge were improperly applied. The trial

court allowed the sentences in the two cases to be served concurrently.

There is no indication of disproportionality between the length sen-

tence and the severity of the offenses. Vela v. State, 2014 Tex. App.

LEXIS 7281, 2014 WL 3049482 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2014, no

pet.) (memo. op).




                                     9
       Potential issue: effective representation. To show ineffective

assistance of trial counsel, an appellant must show by a preponderance

of the evidence that counsel's representation fell below the standard of

prevailing professional norms and that there is a reasonable probability

that, but for counsel's deficiency, the result of the trial would have been

different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984); Salinas v.

State, 163 S.W.3d 734, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Review of counsel's

representation is highly deferential, and there is a strong presumption

that counsel's conduct fell within a wide range of reasonable representa-

tion. Salinas, 163 S.W.3d at 740. A reviewing court will rarely be in a po-

sition on direct appeal to fairly evaluate the merits of an ineffective as-

sistance claim. Id. To overcome the presumption of reasonable profes-

sional assistance, “any allegation of ineffectiveness must be firmly

founded in the record, and the record must affirmatively demonstrate

the alleged ineffectiveness.” Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1999).

       Alford was represented by counsel at every hearing. She indicated

she was satisfied with her representation at the hearings prior to her be-

ing placed on probation. C.R. 28 (SX-1). Ineffective assistance of coun-

sel is not demonstrated.



                                      10
          Potential issue: fundamental error. In rare situations, appellate

courts reverse convictions even when the error resulting in the reversal

was not properly preserved at trial. Carter v. State, 656 S.W.2d 468, 469–

470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983);. The doctrine of fundamental error is lim-

ited in Texas criminal practice to those federal constitutional errors la-

beled as “structural” by the United States Supreme Court. Cain v. State,

947 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), referencing Arizona v.

Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-310 (1991).

          The district court had both subject matter jurisdiction (felonies

adjudicated in the district court), and geographic jurisdiction (offenses

committed in Nueces County). None of the types of fundamental error

that would undermine the fairness of the proceedings against Alford

appear in the record. Schmolesky, TEX. CRIM. PRAC. GUIDE § 90.08

[g][i].




                                       11
                      PRAYER FOR RELIEF

      WHEREFORE, Deborah Alford’s appellate counsel, has dili-

gently reviewed the entire record and concludes there is no reversible

error, and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant the

pending motion to withdraw as counsel.

                                     Respectfully submitted




                                     _________________________
                                     PAUL DODSON
                                     TX BAR #05942000
                                     218 LEMING AVE.
                                     CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 78404
                                     TEL:    361.364.7415
                                     FAX:    361.237.1963
                                     paul@pauldodson.net




                                   12
                   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       By affixing my signature below, I certify that a true copy of the
foregoing document was delivered on March 12, 2015, to the following
attorneys in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure:


   Mr. Doug Norman                        Ms Deborah Alford
   Nueces County District At-             SID# 03731988
   torney Appellate Division              TDCJ # 01964870
   901 Leopard                            Marlin Transfer Facility
   Corpus Christi, Tx 78401               2893 State Hwy 6
                                          Marlin, TX 76661-6588




                                      _________________________
                                      PAUL DODSON



                CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

       The number of words in this document, excluding those provi-
sions described in TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(1) is 1995. This figure is provid-
ed in reliance on the word count of the computer program used to pre-
pare this document.




                                     13
                   NO. 13-14-00676-CR
______________________________________________________
              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
           FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT
        AT CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
______________________________________________________
              DEBORAH ALFORD, Appellant
                           VS
             THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
______________________________________________________
     AN APPEAL FROM THE 94TH DISTRICT COURT
              OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
______________________________________________________

                      APPENDIX
________________________________________________________

Tab    Document
  1.   Indictment
  2.   Judgment Revoking Community Supervision




                              2
  I          c._   •




                                                                                                                    {         (HI - (1 (-;              (   J   i   i...j ·- l.         1         i i     u -· / .2             0
                                                                                                                    .-:\ i     !-·   i ·;   !< ; : •    i i !- !·",( H<                \i             Ar< l t.
                                                                                                                    :·"') J   t1:                1 t H 1t1      -    l .: . U
                                                                                                                                                                          1                 1 i\. ! H :   U ;:-) / 2 :-: / i.   -
                                                                                                                    \)1       1:::,, \\                 i \I                  .\i-\:\i./ I ir       l     (   ;-.J



      fBI NO.
      DPS N-'.).
      D.O.B.                   08-25-1957
      DATE OF ARREST!
      ARRESTING AGENCY:
      BOND: J c / _'-                               By:
                       (7   JL/, .

      NC'.              c:u-Cil- a 01 Cf- c_
      THE STATE Of TEXAS VS. DEBGRAH ALFORD
      CHARGE:   DELIVERY OF COCA NE
                PENALTY GROUP 1    LESS THAN ONE GRJ\M
      STATUTE: TEXAS CONTROLLED SUBST.l\NCES ACT SECTION 481.112
      DEGREE',! STATE Jl\IL FELONY
      COURT:
                                                                               ...........

                                 * * * * * * * *                             * * *                 * * * * * * * * *

      IN THE NAM! AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

           The duly                                                    Gr3nd                 Jury    of       Nueces County, Texas,
      presents in the District                                                      of                       County, Texas, that
      DEBORAH ALFORD, defendant,
      on or about MARCH 11, .2006, in Nw:"ces County, Tex3s, did then and
      t   hsre              knowingly and int Ent ion ally rn2d:e                                            an actual                                 t:ransf er                               or        a

                       1-uctj_ ve       transfer of C'OCJ.\INE,                                a    controlled sub.stance listed

      in           Penalty           ::;rou:;::,    1 ·:Jf the               Texas            Cont rcllPd                      Sub:3tan('.e3                                           Act,             to

      TODD BE.Z\CH,                   and          that    thP           arnc,unt            transft:'rred                     was,                    by aggregated

                              including              any     eidul ti::, rants                 or        di lutant s,                                  less                       than              one

 ..:..gram,

      against the peace and digriity of the Stcite.




                                                                  "'i:. •.                                      ' ] !,
                                                                                                                ;       lj
                                                                                                                                -
                                                                                                                                 •;t
                                                                                                                                     II      \     .
                                                                                                                                                 ,·'
                                                                                                                                                       L/   V           ...
                                                                                                                                                                              .

INC                                     SID  J0067150
                                                                                                     \'·
                                                                                                     \   I

                                                                                                             ·7·uy-o -) J 71{ If{\,
                                                                                                                                \__1                                l             .,
ALFORD                 D BORAH           MAKlE
DOK 0 6 7                    l CJ 5 7
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      6
POSS W I                     f MAN/DEL                    PG FS                              1: indictment
                                          CASE No. 06-CR-2619-C                      COUNT SINGLE
                                                      INCIDENT No./TRN: 9089327592

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                        §           IN THE 94TH DISTRICT
                                                                          §
v.                                                                        §           COURT
                                                                          §
DEBORAH ALFORD                                                            §           NUECES COUNTY, TExAs
                                                                          §
STATE   ID No.: TX03731988                                                §

                        JUDGMENT REVOKING COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
                                                                           Date Judgment
Judge Presiding:        HON. BOBBY GALVAN                                                       111312014
                                                                           Entered:
                                                                           Attorney for
Attorney for State:     YOUNG BURKETT                                                           TANYAGARZA
                                                                           Defendant:
Date of Original Community Supervision Order:                              Statute for Offense:
                                                                           TEXAS CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT
91612006
                                                                           SECTION 481.112
Offense for which Defendant Convicted:
DELIVERY OF COCAINE
Date of Offense:
3/1112006
Degree of Offense:                          Plea to Motion to Revoke: Findings on Deadly Weapon:
STATE JAIL FELONY                           TRUE                      NIA
Original Punishment Assessed:
TWO (2) YEARS STATE JAIL DIVISION, TDCJ PROBATED THREE (3) YEARS FINE: $ NIA
Shock Community Supervision:
NIA                FINE: $ NIA
Date Sentence Imposed:       111312014                                Date Sentence to Commence:         111312014
Punishment and Place
                     TWO (2) YEARS STATE JAIL DIVISION, TDCJ
of Confinement:
    THIS SENTENCE SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY with Cause No. 08-CR-3889-C of Nueces County,
                                                Texas.
Fine:                     Court Costs: Restitution:    Restitution Payable to:
$NIA                      $               2£ ....
                                       $NIA            D VICTIM (see below) D AGENCY/AGENT (see below)
                                  IS ORIGINAL JUDGMENT I SENTENCE REFORMED? NO

D In accordance with Section 12.44(a) Penal Code, the Court finds that the ends of justice would best be served by punishment as
a Class A misdemeanor. Defendant is adjudged to be guilty of a state jail felony and is assessed punishment indicated above.
Sex Offender Registration Requirements do not apply to the Defendant. TEX. CODE CRIM. PRoc. chapter 62
The age of the victim at the time of the offense was NIA .
                If Defendant is to serve sentence in TDCJ. enter incarceration periods in chronological order.
                From         to               From              to            From       to
Time             From        to               From              to            From       to
Credited:
                If Defendant is to serve sentence in county jail or is given credit toward fine and costs. enter days credited below.
                            DAYS              NOTES:
      All pertinent information, names and assessments indicated above are incorporated into the language of the judgment below by reference.
        This cause was called in Nueces County, Texas. The State appeared by her District Attorney.
         Counsel I Waiver of Counsel (select one)
12] Defendant appeared in person with Counsel.
                                                                                                                   S CA N N E D
D Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to representation by counsel in writing in open court.
         The State filed a motion to revoke Defendant's community supervision. After hearing the State's                       plea,
the evidence submitted, and reviewing the record, the Court GRANTS the State's motion. The Court's record            that'I>'etendant
                                                                                                                                 122 CLERK
                                                                                                                   PATSY PEREZ, DISTRICT
                                          06-2619C REV .. doc                                      Page 1 of2            NUECES COUNTY
                                                                     2: Judgment Revoking Community Supervision
was previously convicted of a felony offense and punishment was assessed as indicated above. The record indicates the Court ordered
imposition of Defendant's sentence of confinement suspended and placed Defendant on community supervision for 3 YEARS.
         The Court FINDS Defendant has violated the conditions of community supervision as set out in the State's ORIGINAL
Motion to Revoke Community Supervision as follows:
          SEE ATTACHED COPY OF MOTION TO REVOKE.
         Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the previous orders in this cause suspending imposition of sentence of confinement and
placing Defendant on community supervision REVOKED. (select one of the following)
D The Court ORDERS Defendant punished in accordance with the judgment and sentence originally entered in this cause.
1:81 Finding it to be in the interest of justice, the Court ORDERS Defendant punished in accordance with the reformed judgment and
sentence indicated above.
         Punishment Options (select one)
1:81 Confinement in Institutional Division. The Court ORDERS the authorized agent of the State of Texas or the Sheriff of this
County to take, safely convey, and deliver Defendant to the Director, Institutional Division, TDCJ. The Court ORDERS
Defendant to be confined for the period and in the manner indicated above. The Court ORDERS Defendant remanded to the custody of
the Sheriff of this county until the Sheriff can obey the directions of this sentence. The Court ORDERS that upon release from
confinement, Defendant proceed immediately to the Parole Division, TDCJ. Once there, the Court ORDERS Defendant to pay, or
make arrangements to pay, any remaining unpaid fines, court costs, and restitution as ordered by the Court above.
D County Jail-Confinement I Confinement in Lieu of Payment. The Court ORDERS Defendant immediately committed to
the custody of the Sheriff of         County, Texas on the date the sentence is to commence. Defendant shall be confined in the
County Jail for the period indicated above. The Court ORDERS that upon release from confinement, Defendant shall proceed
immediately to the          . Once there, the Court ORDERS Defendant to pay, or make arrangements to pay, any remaining unpaid
fines, court costs, and restitution as ordered by the Court above.
D Fine Only Payment. The punishment assessed against Defendant is for a FINE ONLY. The Court ORDERS Defendant to proceed
immediately to the Office of the          County . Once there, the Court ORDERS Defendant to pay or make arrangements to pay all
fines and court costs as ordered by the Court in this cause.
         The Court ORDERS Defendant's sentence EXECUTED.
         The Court ORDERS that Defendant is given credit noted above on this sentence for the time spent incarcerated.
         The Court further ORDERS Defendant to pay all fines, court costs, and restitution as indicated above.



Signed and entered on _ _ _ _ _




                                                                                                                    123
                                      06-2619C REV __ doc                            Page 2 of2
