Andrew Darnell Sampy v. State
01-16-00222-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 25, 2016Background
- Appellant Andrew Darnell Sampy is represented by court‑appointed counsel on appeal from a criminal conviction.
- Counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief concluding the appeal is frivolous.
- The motion to withdraw failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(a),(b).
- Counsel did not send the Kelly letter to the appellant notifying him of his rights or provide the required form motion for pro se access to the appellate record.
- The Court ordered counsel to file an amended, compliant motion to withdraw and to send the Kelly letter and form motion to the appellant, and to file written notice with the Clerk within 14 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel's motion to withdraw complies with Tex. R. App. P. 6.5 | Counsel contends appeal is frivolous and seeks to withdraw under Anders | Court/State argues the motion fails to meet Rule 6.5(a),(b) requirements | Court ordered counsel to file an amended motion that complies with Rule 6.5 |
| Whether counsel fulfilled Kelly notice requirements to appellant | Counsel implied notice by filing motion and Anders brief | Court finds counsel did not send the Kelly letter or form motion and thus failed to protect appellant's pro se rights | Court ordered counsel to send Kelly letter, form motion, and file written confirmation within 14 days |
| Whether appellant must be given access to the appellate record to prepare a pro se response | Appellant (via form motion) requests appellate record and 30‑day extension to file pro se response | State not directly argued in order; court enforces procedural protections | Court provided a form motion and instructed counsel to inform appellant of right to access record and to file the form if appellant desires access |
| Whether procedural noncompliance requires remediation before withdrawal | Counsel argues withdrawal under Anders is appropriate now | Court requires strict compliance with Anders/Kelly/Schulman procedural safeguards before permitting withdrawal | Court withheld approval of withdrawal and ordered specific corrective steps by counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes counsel’s duty when seeking to withdraw on grounds that appeal is frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (clarifies Rule 6.5 requirements for motions to withdraw and Anders briefs)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (requires counsel to send specific written notice and a form motion to appellant to protect pro se access and rights)