Background
Alex Whitaker was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for attempted sexual assault, a third-degree felony. The State later moved to adjudicate him guilty, alleging seven violations of his supervision conditions. Whitaker pleaded true to three allegations and not true to four.
After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated Whitaker guilty and sentenced him to seven years and six months in prison. His appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating that the record presented no nonfrivolous appellate issue, and Whitaker responded by asserting that he had complied with his supervision conditions.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and agreed that the appeal was wholly frivolous. The record showed that Whitaker failed to complete required sex-offender treatment, missed appointments, failed to complete assignments, viewed pornography, used illicit drugs, tested positive for prohibited substances, and failed to report. Because one violation is enough to support revocation and adjudication—and Whitaker pleaded true to three allegations and admitted some violations—the court found no arguable basis to challenge the adjudication.
The court nevertheless corrected two errors. It deleted a $15 time-payment fee assessed while the appeal was pending, without prejudice to reassessment after the appellate mandate if Whitaker does not timely pay the amounts owed. It also modified the judgment to show accurately that Whitaker pleaded true to allegations one through three and not true to allegations four through seven. The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the judgment as modified.
Key Takeaways
- A single proven violation can support revocation of community supervision and adjudication of guilt.
- Whitaker’s pleas of true and his admissions foreclosed an argument that he complied with every supervision condition.
- A time-payment fee assessed while an appeal is pending must be deleted, though it may later be reassessed under the proper circumstances.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the limited prospects for challenging an adjudication when the defendant has pleaded true to one or more alleged supervision violations. It also confirms that an Anders review requires the appellate court to examine the full record independently, even when appointed counsel finds no meritorious issue.
The opinion further shows that an appellate court may correct clerical and cost-related errors despite finding the substantive appeal frivolous.