Lawrence James Jr. v. State ( 2015 )

NUMBER 13-14-00380-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
LAWRENCE JAMES JR., Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 252nd District Court
of Jefferson County, Texas.
ORDER ABATING APPEAL
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
Order Per Curiam
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant’s counsel
has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the
record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. 1
Counsel's brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California, by presenting
a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why counsel concluded there are
no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Currently pending before
the Court is “Appellant’s Objections to Appellate Counsel’s Anders Brief,” which we
construe as appellant’s pro se response to the Anders Brief.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988). In this evaluation, we consider the record, the arguments raised
in the Anders brief, and the issues appellant points out in his pro se response. See
United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902 (5th Cir.1998); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
403, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). A court of appeals has two options when counsel
files an Anders brief and appellant files a subsequent pro se response. After
reviewing the entire record, it may: (1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous
and issue an opinion explaining that it finds no reversible error; or (2) determine that
there are arguable grounds for appeal and remand the case to the trial court for
appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If the court finds arguable grounds for appeal, it may not
review those grounds until after new counsel has briefed those issues on appeal. Id.
After our independent review, we conclude that there are “arguable” appellate
1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuant
to an order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West, Westlaw
through 2013 3d C.S.).
2
issues in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–
27. For instance, among others, appellant has briefed issues pertaining to the
voluntariness of his plea, the violation of his due process rights, the completeness of
the record, ineffective assistance of counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct. We
stress that this is not an exhaustive list of arguable issues that appellant could raise on
appeal. We also emphasize that we have not determined that any of these arguments
have merit.
We conclude that appellate counsel has met his professional obligations under
Anders and GRANT his motion to withdraw. We ABATE the appeal and REMAND the
case to the trial court for appointment of a new appellate attorney. See Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 409.
The trial court shall make the appointment and ensure that a supplemental record
of the proceedings is filed in this Court no later than twenty days from the date of this
order. We will reinstate the appeal upon receipt of the supplemental record.
Appellant’s brief on the merits will be due thirty days after the supplemental record is
filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
15th day of May, 2015.
3