Neil E. Lawrence v. State ( 2014 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-14-00017-CR
________________________
NEIL E. LAWRENCE, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 108th District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 66,650-E, Honorable Douglas Woodburn, Presiding
May 8, 2014
ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant Neil E. Lawrence was convicted of possession of marijuana in an
amount of 2,000 pounds or less but more than fifty pounds. After a punishment hearing
before the trial court, he was sentenced to eight years confinement and fined $1,000.
Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an
Anders1 brief, wherein she certified that, after diligently searching the record, she
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with her brief, appellate counsel
filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of her belief that there was no
reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response pro se. By letter, this Court
also notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by May 28, 2014, if he
wished to do so.
In addition to counsel’s review of the record, this Court is required to conduct our
own review to assess the accuracy of counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any
arguable issues pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)
and In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We note that although
appellate counsel represents that appellant pled guilty, we do not find that plea in either
the clerk’s or reporter’s records, and the judgment reflects that appellant pled “not guilty”
and was convicted after a bench trial. In the reporter’s record, appellant represented to
the trial court that, if he was to lose at the suppression hearing, he would “likely” plead
guilty. However, prior to commencement of that hearing, the indictment was read, and
appellant pled “not guilty.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied the
suppression motion and found appellant guilty.
Furthermore, the suppression hearing involved the issue of whether the officer
had reasonable suspicion after a traffic stop to detain appellant approximately 37-40
minutes in order for a drug dog to arrive after appellant had refused consent to search
his vehicle.
We conclude that arguable grounds for appeal exist. We next grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw, abate this proceeding, and remand to the trial court for appointment
of new counsel. The latter is directed to brief any arguable issues counsel may
2
uncover, including 1) the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the conviction, 2) the
propriety of conducting the suppression hearing and bench trial in one hearing, and 3)
the propriety of the decision to deny the motion to suppress. The trial court shall include
in its order appointing counsel the name, address, telephone number, and state bar
number of the new attorney and cause its order appointing new counsel to be included
in a supplemental clerk’s record which shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court by June
9, 2014. Appellant’s brief shall be due thirty days from the date of the trial court’s
appointment of new counsel.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
3