Alicia Midkiff v. State
03-14-00445-CR
| Tex. App. | May 6, 2015Background
- Appellant Alicia Midkiff was tried and convicted in Williamson County for misdemeanor assault with bodily injury–family violence after a July 2014 jury trial; sentence of 225 days in county jail following a bench-assessed punishment pursuant to a plea agreement.
- Facts: after drinking at a restaurant, Midkiff returned to a shared apartment, confronted roommate Brooke Reiman, struck and grabbed Reiman; Reiman struck back and sustained swelling and a torn shirt. Multiple witnesses observed injuries.
- Cedar Park Police were called; officers observed Reiman’s injuries and located Midkiff nearby; Sgt. Mauer’s patrol video (with defense-requested redactions) was admitted and played.
- Defense challenged the patrol video admission and later objected to its redacted form; the trial court admitted the redacted video.
- Appellant timely appealed. Court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw under Anders, submitting an Anders brief concluding the appeal is frivolous and identifying potential but unmeritorious issues (sufficiency of evidence, admissibility of video, excessiveness of punishment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Midkiff) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict | Evidence and witness testimony support conviction for assault causing bodily injury | Conviction arguably contestable on credibility or who started the altercation | Conviction supported—ample evidence; counsel finds sufficiency non-meritorious |
| Admissibility of officer patrol video (redacted) | Redacted video was properly admitted; redactions were defense‑requested and complied with | Admission was more prejudicial than probative after redactions; trial court erred | Trial court acted within discretion; admission was reasonable and not an abuse |
| Excessiveness of punishment | Sentence (225 days) is within statutory range for Class A misdemeanor | Arguably excessive in context (defense argued non‑excessive) | Punishment within statutory limits; not excessive as a matter of law |
| Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw under Anders | N/A — State opposes frivolous delays | Counsel asserts appeal is wholly frivolous and seeks leave to withdraw after filing Anders brief and notifying client | Court to independently review record per Anders; counsel requested withdrawal and provided client notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (attorney must file brief and notify client when concluding appeal is frivolous and seek leave to withdraw)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (counsel must inform the court when appeal is frivolous despite dilemma between duties to client and court)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (trial court admission of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (legal‑sufficiency standard—review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict)
- Gaines v. State, 479 S.W.2d 678 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (punishment within statutory range is not excessive)