Armando Ochoa v. State
03-14-00740-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 22, 2015Background
- Appellant Armando Ochoa was indicted for felony assault-family-violence (enhanced by prior convictions), tried by jury, found guilty, and sentenced to 14 years after a punishment hearing before the court.
- Ochoa filed a timely notice of appeal; trial court certified his right to appeal.
- Appellant’s counsel submitted an Anders-style brief (concluding the appeal is frivolous) and moved to withdraw.
- The State reviewed the record and agrees counsel conducted a conscientious review and that no meritorious appellate issue appears.
- The State asks the court to deem the appeal frivolous and to affirm the conviction, but requests time to respond if Ochoa files a pro se brief or the court appoints new counsel for further briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel complied with Anders/Penson requirements when filing a brief that concludes the appeal is frivolous | The State (as respondent) agrees counsel complied with Anders and Penson and that the brief shows a conscientious, thorough review of the record | Counsel for Ochoa concluded the appeal is frivolous and moved to withdraw; Ochoa may submit pro se arguments to contest that conclusion | The State urges the court to find counsel complied with Anders/Penson and to conclude the appeal is frivolous absent any pro se brief or further briefing |
| Whether the appeal presents any meritorious issues warranting reversal or further briefing | The State: the record discloses no meritorious or arguable error and affirmance is appropriate | Appellant (through appointed counsel): no arguable grounds identified in Anders brief; reserved right to file pro se brief | The State requests affirmance; if the court wants further development, it should appoint new counsel and allow supplemental briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural requirements for appointed counsel who concludes an appeal is frivolous)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (standards for reviewing Anders-type filings and role of appellate court)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (Texas guidance on Anders filings)
- Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) (procedural precedent cited regarding counsel’s duty in frivolous-appeal contexts)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (discussion of appointment of new counsel and further briefing when issues require fuller development)