Armstrong, Tristan Omarr, PD-1575-15

Background

Tristan Omarr Armstrong was convicted by a jury of evading arrest with a vehicle (third-degree felony) and sentenced to two years' confinement; the First Court of Appeals affirmed on October 27, 2015.
Appointed appellate counsel, Oscar Luis Cantu, Jr., filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, asserting the appeal was frivolous and presenting no reversible error.
Armstrong filed a petition for discretionary review to the Court of Criminal Appeals arguing counsel misled the Court of Appeals, omitted material facts, and violated his constitutional rights (First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendments).
Key factual complaints by Armstrong include alleged inconsistencies and perjury by Patrolman Grey regarding probable cause and discovery of a marijuana "roach," and that counsel failed to disclose the officer’s alleged criminal/disciplinary background and an unrelated police incident (No. 1300011013).
Armstrong contends counsel’s Anders brief labeled the appeal frivolous despite allegedly viable issues (e.g., Fourth Amendment search, Sixth Amendment right to confrontation/interview witnesses) and that counsel knowingly submitted misleading correspondence to the court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel properly filed an Anders brief and may withdraw	Armstrong: Cantu mischaracterized the appeal as frivolous, withheld material facts, and thus violated duties and Armstrong's rights	Court/Counsel: Counsel complied with Anders duties, reviewed the record, provided the record and notice to appellant	Court of Appeals: Anders brief met requirements; independent review found no reversible error; appeal frivolous; granted counsel’s motion to withdraw
Whether counsel submitted misleading correspondence or committed misconduct	Armstrong: Counsel knowingly submitted misleading correspondence to deceive the court and violated penal provisions and appellant’s rights	Counsel implicitly: No misconduct; acted professionally in evaluation and notification	Not adopted by Court of Appeals; no finding of counsel misconduct in the opinion; appellate decision stands
Fourth Amendment/search and evidence (officer testimony about marijuana roach)	Armstrong: Officer testimony was inconsistent; search/seizure illegal; evidence and probable cause questionable	State: Trial evidence supported conviction; record did not show reversible Fourth Amendment error	Court: After review, no arguable reversible error found in record regarding search/probable cause
Sixth Amendment confrontation and right to interview witnesses (alleged second evasion)	Armstrong: Denied opportunity to interview witnesses; counsel ignored a second evasion claim, violating right to counsel and due process	State/Court: Record review showed no arguable grounds; procedural safeguards for Anders process were followed	Court: No arguable Sixth Amendment error identified; conviction affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requires counsel who seeks to withdraw on appeal to file a brief identifying anything arguable and deliver the record to defendant)
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (discusses appellate counsel duties in no-merit contexts)
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (procedural requirements when counsel files an Anders brief in Texas)
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (counsel must take concrete measures to facilitate a defendant’s access to the appellate record after filing an Anders brief)
Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for appeal exist)
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same)
Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (context for Anders procedures and appellate review)
Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (appellant’s right to pursue discretionary review after counsel withdraws)