Alpha Glynn Meskimen v. State
10-17-00055-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 26, 2017Background
- Appellant Alpha Glynn Meskimen pleaded open guilty to evading arrest or detention with a vehicle and pleaded true to an enhancement (prior aggravated sexual assault conviction).
- The trial court accepted the pleas, found the enhancement true, and assessed punishment at 10 years' confinement.
- The trial court certified appellant’s right to appeal only the punishment phase.
- Appellant’s court‑appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw, concluding no meritorious appealable issues after reviewing the record.
- Counsel informed Meskimen of his right to review the record and file a pro se response; none was filed.
- The court conducted an independent review of the record, found no reversible error, affirmed the judgment, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Meskimen’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial proceedings or punishment contain reversible error | Counsel (on Meskimen’s behalf) raised no non‑frivolous errors after review | There are no arguable grounds for reversal | Court found no reversible error; judgment affirmed |
| Whether appellate counsel complied with Anders/High procedures | Counsel asserted he complied and provided record and notice to Meskimen | Compliance was sufficient under controlling authority | Court concluded counsel complied and procedures satisfied |
| Whether independent appellate review was required and adequate | N/A (issue of appellate procedure) | Court must independently review whole record upon an Anders brief | Court performed full review per Penson/Anders and found case frivolous |
| Whether counsel should be permitted to withdraw | Counsel moved to withdraw after filing Anders brief | State did not oppose withdrawal if procedures met | Court granted motion to withdraw and ordered counsel to notify appellant of PDR rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (Anders procedure requires counsel to submit brief showing frivolousness and move to withdraw)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (appellate court must independently review record after Anders brief)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. guidance on content of Anders briefs and procedures)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. panel opinion discussing counsel’s duties under Anders)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. confirming appellate courts meet Rule 47.1 by stating review and finding no reversible error)