Joey Sullivan v. the State of Texas
Docket 02-25-00131-CR
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Docket
- 02-25-00131-CR
Appeal from the trial court's adjudication of guilt and sentence following a hearing on the State's petition to proceed to adjudication of community supervision.
Summary
The Second Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court’s adjudication of guilt and three-year prison sentence for Joey Sullivan. Sullivan had been placed on deferred-adjudication community supervision after pleading guilty to evading arrest with a vehicle. The State later petitioned to adjudicate, alleging Sullivan fled from a peace officer; after a hearing the trial court found the violation true, adjudicated guilt, and imposed sentence. Sullivan’s appointed appellate attorneys concluded the appeal was frivolous, submitted an Anders brief, and the court agreed there were no arguable grounds for relief.
Issues Decided
- Whether the trial court erred in finding Sullivan violated the conditions of his deferred-adjudication community supervision by fleeing from a peace officer.
- Whether the evidence presented at the adjudication hearing was insufficient to support a finding of violation.
- Whether appellate counsel properly moved to withdraw under Anders by showing the appeal was frivolous.
Court's Reasoning
The court concluded the record — including testimony from two officers and body-camera footage — supported the trial court’s finding that Sullivan violated his supervision by fleeing from an officer. The appellate record and counsel’s Anders brief provided a professional evaluation showing no arguable grounds for reversal. Sullivan’s pro se filings did not identify any viable claims that would undermine the hearing’s outcome or the sufficiency of the evidence, so the appellate court found the appeal frivolous and affirmed.
Authorities Cited
- Texas Penal Code § 38.04Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A)
- Deferred adjudication statuteTex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42A.101(a)
- Anders v. California386 U.S. 738 (1967)
- Kelly v. State436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)
Parties
- Appellant
- Joey Sullivan
- Appellee
- The State of Texas
- Judge
- Wade Birdwell
Key Dates
- Indictment
- 2022-11-01
- Guilty plea and deferred adjudication
- 2022-12-01
- State's petition to adjudicate
- 2025-04-01
- Decision by Court of Appeals
- 2026-04-16
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider petition for discretionary review
If Sullivan wants further review, he should consult counsel about filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals within the applicable deadline.
- 2
Consult appellate counsel
Discuss potential grounds for review or post-conviction relief, including whether any preserved legal issues or new evidence could justify further proceedings.
- 3
Prepare for incarceration or post-conviction remedies
If the sentence is being or will be executed, Sullivan should work with counsel to address surrender logistics and explore habeas corpus or other collateral challenges if appropriate.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What does this decision mean?
- The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Sullivan violated his supervision and upheld his three-year prison sentence, so the conviction and sentence stand.
- Who is affected by this ruling?
- Joey Sullivan is directly affected because his adjudication and sentence were affirmed; the State’s adjudication decision was also upheld.
- What happens next for Sullivan?
- Sullivan remains sentenced to three years in prison and may consider filing a petition for discretionary review to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals if he wishes to continue appealing.
- Why didn't appellate counsel continue the appeal?
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous after reviewing the record and evidence, and the court agreed there were no arguable grounds for relief.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-25-00131-CR
___________________________
JOEY SULLIVAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 297th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1750156
Before Birdwell, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In November 2022, Appellant Joey Sullivan was indicted for evading arrest or
detention with a vehicle, a third-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(a),
(b)(2)(A). The following month, he pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain. The trial
court deferred finding him guilty and instead placed him on four years’ deferred-
adjudication community supervision.1 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42A.101(a).
In April 2025, the State filed a petition to proceed to adjudication on Sullivan’s
evading-arrest-or-detention-with-a-vehicle offense.2 In its petition, the State alleged
that Sullivan had violated his community-supervision conditions by committing
another offense—intentionally fleeing from a peace officer who was attempting to
lawfully arrest or detain him. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(a). The trial court held
a hearing on the State’s petition. At the hearing, Sullivan pleaded not true to the
alleged violation. The State presented the testimony of two Grand Prairie police
officers and footage from one of the officers’ body cameras to prove the alleged
violation. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the trial court found that
Sullivan had violated the terms of his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty,
1
The trial court also ordered Sullivan to pay a $400 fine, $290 in court costs,
and $1,235 in reimbursement fees.
2
This was the State’s second petition to proceed to adjudication. At the State’s
request, its first petition was dismissed and additional community-supervision
conditions were imposed.
2
and sentenced him to three years in prison. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.34 (setting
forth punishment range for third-degree felony). Sullivan timely appealed.
After determining that Sullivan’s appeal was frivolous, his court-appointed
appellate attorneys filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and, in support of that
motion, a brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400
(1967). The attorneys’ motion and brief meet the requirements of Anders by
presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds for relief. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Additionally, in compliance
with Kelly v. State, Sullivan’s attorneys have certified that they provided Sullivan with
copies of the brief and the motion to withdraw, informed Sullivan of his right to file a
pro se response and to receive a free copy of the appellate record, provided him with
a motion for pro se access to the appellate record lacking only his signature, and
informed him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of
Criminal Appeals if he does not receive relief from this court. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Sullivan filed a motion to access the appellate record, which
we granted, and the district clerk mailed him a copy of the record. Sullivan then filed
multiple pro se responses to his attorneys’ Anders brief, but his responses did not
show any arguable grounds for appeal. The State declined to file a brief.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsels’ brief and have determined
that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record
that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28
3
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006). We therefore grant counsels’ motion to withdraw and affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
/s/ Wade Birdwell
Wade Birdwell
Justice
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: April 16, 2026
4