Background
Marcus Latrell James Jr. pleaded guilty in three cases to evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle, manufacture or delivery of between four and 200 grams of a controlled substance, and abandoning or endangering a child. He elected to have the trial court assess punishment without a sentencing recommendation from the State.
The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of two years for evading arrest, 15 years for the controlled-substance offense, and two years for abandoning or endangering a child. On appeal, James’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief concluding that the appeals were frivolous. Although notified of his right and deadline to file a pro se brief, James filed no response.
The Court’s Holding
The Texas Ninth Court of Appeals independently reviewed the appellate record and agreed with counsel that no arguable issues supported an appeal. Under the Anders procedure described in the opinion, the court therefore found no need to remand for appointment of new counsel to brief additional issues.
The court affirmed all three trial-court judgments. It noted that James could seek further review by filing a petition for discretionary review.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court reviewing an Anders brief must independently examine the record to determine whether any arguable appellate issue exists.
- The court concluded that no arguable issues supported James’s appeals and declined to order the appointment of new counsel.
- The concurrent sentences of two years, 15 years, and two years remained in place because the court affirmed all three judgments.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates the procedure Texas appellate courts follow when appointed counsel concludes that a criminal appeal is frivolous. The court’s role is not limited to accepting counsel’s assessment; it independently reviews the record for arguable grounds before deciding whether to affirm or require further briefing by new counsel.