Camden Desean Sanders v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-24-00163-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CAMDEN DESEAN SANDERS, § APPEAL FROM THE 19TH
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § MCLENNAN COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

Camden Desean Sanders appeals his conviction for evading arrest or detention with a
vehicle. 1 Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.
1969). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was indicted for evading arrest or detention with a vehicle. 2 On April 4, 2022,
Appellant initially accepted a plea agreement for deferred adjudication community supervision for
a two-year period and a fine to be determined by the trial court. Because Appellant later sought to
contest the charge against him, the trial court rejected the plea agreement, Appellant withdrew his
“guilty” plea, and the case was set for trial.

1
This case was transferred to this Court from the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco, Texas, pursuant to a docket
equalization order. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West Supp. 2023).
2
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A) (West 2016).
Appellant later pled “guilty” to the lesser included offense of evading arrest or detention,
a Class A misdemeanor, in exchange for a recommendation of deferred adjudication community
supervision for one year and no fine. On August 25, 2023, the trial court accepted the plea and
placed Appellant on community supervision in accordance with the recommendation.
On January 29, 2024, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt, alleging ten
violations of the terms of his community supervision, and subsequently filed an amended motion
alleging eleven total violations. At the hearing, Appellant pleaded “true” to all eleven allegations
in the State’s motion. Accordingly, the trial court adjudicated Appellant’s guilt, found the
allegations in the State’s motion to be “true,” found him guilty of the Class A misdemeanor offense
of evading arrest or detention, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to 365 days
of confinement in the McLennan County Jail with no fine. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel relates that he reviewed the record and found no reversible points of
error to argue on appeal. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App.
[Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating
why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 3
We conducted an independent review of the record in this case and found no reversible
error. See id. We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See id.

CONCLUSION
As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991),
Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the
merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to
withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

3
In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified
Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took
concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired,
and no pro se brief was filed.

2
Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy
of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should
Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either
retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a pro se
petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty
days from either the date of this opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was
overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must
be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for
discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered October 9, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

3
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 9, 2024

NO. 12-24-00163-CR

CAMDEN DESEAN SANDERS,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 19th District Court
of McLennan County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2020-923-C1)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.

By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.