Pendergraft, James Ray ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    OF TEXAS
    NO. PD-0474-19
    JAMES RAY PENDERGRAFT, Appellant
    v.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS
    ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
    FROM THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS
    SMITH COUNTY
    K ELLER, P.J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
    Appellant’s attorney filed an Anders brief.1 According to fact findings made by the trial
    court, Appellant informed that court that he could not read or write and that he needed a copy of the
    record to take back to his prison unit so that another inmate (a “writ writer”) could prepare a pro se
    brief on his behalf. The trial court ordered the district clerk to send an electronic copy of the record,
    via compact disc (CD), to Appellant at his unit by certified mail. According to a letter from the
    Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), forwarded to this Court by the Smith County
    1
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967).
    PENDERGRAFT — 2
    Criminal District Attorney’s Office, TDCJ confiscated the CD under a policy that requires CDs or
    DVDs to be sent to the prison unit law library rather than directly to an inmate. This letter also states
    that Appellant “was permitted to make disposition of the CD by signing a release form to return the
    CD to the sender.”
    The court of appeals concluded that appellate counsel, in accordance with Kelly v. State,2
    “took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record.”3 We do not
    disagree with that assessment, but Kelly also assigns to the court of appeals “the ultimate
    responsibility to make sure that, one way or another . . . the appellant is granted access to the
    appellate record so that he may file his response . . . before it rules on the adequacy of the Anders
    brief and appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw.”4 It appears to us that Appellant has not had
    access to the appellate record so as to afford him the ability to file a pro se response.
    We vacate the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to that court for further
    proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    Delivered: April 29, 2020
    Do not publish
    2
    
    436 S.W.3d 313
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
    3
    Pendergraft v. State, No. 12-18-00091-CR, slip op. at 2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Tyler April 17,
    2019) (not designated for publication).
    4
    
    Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 315
    .
    

Document Info

Docket Number: PD-0474-19

Filed Date: 4/29/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/30/2020