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 sentenced James to two years for evading arrest, 15 years for the controlled-substance offense, and two years for abandoning or endangering a child, with the sentences running concurrently. His appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding that the appeals were frivolous. Although notified that he could file a pro se brief, James did not respond.
The Court’s Holding
The Texas Ninth Court of Appeals independently reviewed the appellate record and agreed with counsel that no arguable issues supported any of James’s three appeals. The court therefore found no basis to appoint new counsel to rebrief the cases.
The court affirmed all three trial-court judgments and their corresponding sentences.
Key Takeaways
- The opinion resolved three consolidated criminal appeals involving separate convictions and judgments.
- After conducting the review required following an Anders filing, the court found no arguable ground for appeal.
- The concurrent sentences of two years, 15 years, and two years remain in effect.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the procedure Texas appellate courts follow when appointed counsel files an Anders brief: the court reviews the record independently and either finds the appeal wholly frivolous or identifies an arguable issue requiring appointment of new counsel.
Here, that review produced no arguable appellate issue, resulting in affirmance of each judgment in the three consolidated cases.