Background
Michael DeGrate was indicted for assault on a family or household member with a prior conviction, a third-degree felony. In December 2021, he entered a plea bargain with the State, pleading guilty in exchange for deferred-adjudication community supervision for three years. The trial court accepted the plea and placed him on supervision.
In April 2024, while DeGrate remained under supervision, the trial court extended his original three-year supervision period for an additional three years, effectively until December 2027. In June 2025, the State filed a petition to proceed to adjudication, alleging eight violations of the community supervision terms. At the adjudication hearing, the State waived one allegation, and DeGrate pleaded true to the remaining seven violations.
The trial court found DeGrate guilty and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. DeGrate appealed, but his court-appointed appellate counsel determined the appeal was frivolous and filed a motion to withdraw under the standards set forth in Anders v. California.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding the appeal wholly frivolous and without merit. The court confirmed that counsel properly complied with Anders v. California requirements by providing a professional evaluation of the record and explaining why no arguable grounds for relief existed.
The court noted that counsel had properly informed DeGrate of his rights, including his right to file a pro se response and seek discretionary review. Although given the opportunity, DeGrate did not file a pro se response. The State similarly declined to file a brief but agreed that DeGrate had no meritorious grounds for appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Deferred-adjudication community supervision can be extended within the original supervision period, and violations occurring during the extended period can result in adjudication and sentencing.
- Courts must follow the Anders v. California procedure when counsel believes an appeal is frivolous, including providing the defendant with notice, copies of briefs, and opportunity for pro se response.
- An appellate court will affirm a conviction when the record contains nothing that arguably supports reversal.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the appellate standards for handling frivolous criminal appeals and the proper procedures counsel must follow under Anders v. California. For defendants on deferred adjudication, the case illustrates that extensions of community supervision remain within the trial court’s authority and that violations during an extended period can result in full adjudication and sentencing on the original charge.
The opinion also confirms Texas courts’ commitment to the Anders framework, ensuring that even when appellate counsel finds an appeal meritless, defendants retain procedural protections and opportunities to raise arguments pro se before a court declares an appeal frivolous.