Anthony Earl Washington v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Abatement Order filed June 24, 2014
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    ____________
    NO. 14-13-00818-CR
    ____________
    ANTHONY EARL WASHINGTON, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 248th District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 1373285
    ABATEMENT ORDER
    Appellant appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly
    weapon. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the
    appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967); High v. State, 
    573 S.W.2d 807
     (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We disagree
    with appellate counsel’s conclusion that there are no arguable issues for appeal.
    See Anders, 
    386 U.S. at 744
    ; Bledsoe v. State, 
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 827–28 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 2005). Specifically, when determining whether appellant would be
    permitted to testify free of impeachment by prior convictions, it appears the trial
    court used an incorrect test in determining, in the interests of justice, that the
    probative value of the remote convictions supported by the specific facts and
    circumstances outweighed their prejudicial effect. See Leyba v. State, 
    416 S.W.3d 563
    , 567–69 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’d); Tex. R. Evid.
    609(b).1
    Accordingly, the case is abated and remanded to the trial court with
    instructions to appoint other counsel and have a supplemental clerk’s record
    containing that appointment filed with the clerk of this Court within thirty days of
    the date of this order.
    The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s
    active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the
    trial court’s supplemental clerk’s record is filed with this court.
    PER CURIAM
    1
    Our decision should not be viewed as a determination of the merits of any issues raised in the
    brief or a limitation on any issue that may be raised in this appeal. Appellant’s new appellate counsel
    should personally review the record to determine what issues should be raised in this appeal.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-13-00818-CR

Filed Date: 6/24/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/22/2015