Benjamin Robert Barran v. State
14-15-00359-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 13, 2015Background
- Appellant Benjamin Robert Barran pleaded guilty to fraudulent possession/use of identifying information (Tex. Penal Code §32.51) on Jan. 15, 2015.
- The plea was an open plea in which Barran agreed to plead guilty in exchange for dismissal of four other pending charges (a charge-bargain).
- At sentencing (Apr. 10, 2015) the court assessed 20 years' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine; Barran filed a written notice of appeal the same day.
- The trial court’s certification states Barran waived his right to appeal; the clerk’s record and plea colloquy reflect the waiver was part of the charge-bargain.
- The court of appeals questioned whether the waiver was valid because non-negotiated pre-sentencing waivers can be invalid unless knowing with certainty; it asked the trial court to review the certification.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders-style brief concluding the appeal is frivolous if the waiver is invalid, and requesting permission to withdraw if no arguable grounds exist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of waiver of appeal | State: Waiver is valid because it was part of a charge-bargain — Barran pleaded guilty in exchange for dismissal of four charges. | Barran: (implicitly) Waiver may be invalid if not knowing and voluntary with certainty about punishment. | Court: Record shows waiver was explained on the record as part of the deal; appears voluntary and knowing; if waiver valid, appeal must be dismissed. |
| Whether plea was supported by sufficient evidence | State: Judicial confession and signed stipulation of evidence introduced satisfy Art. 1.15 and support conviction. | Barran: (no preserved challenge) did not contest sufficiency in record. | Court: Stipulation and judicial confession embraced essential elements; evidence sufficient to support plea. |
| Competency to plead and voluntariness of plea | State: Judge and counsel found Barran competent despite depression and medication; plea was voluntary. | Barran: (no successful challenge) counsel had no competence concerns. | Court: Record supports competency and voluntariness; trial court properly admonished. |
| Whether appeal is frivolous such that counsel may withdraw (Anders) | Appellate counsel: After review, no non-frivolous issues to raise; requests to withdraw and not pursue appeal. | Barran: Informed of right to review record and file pro se brief or PDR. | Court: Counsel followed Anders procedure; if waiver invalid, court will review record for reversible error; counsel’s brief concludes no arguable grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedural rule for appointed counsel who finds appeal frivolous)
- Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. Crim. App.) (sentencing-bargain waiver of appeal can be enforced when part of plea agreement)
- Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. Crim. App.) (post-sentencing waivers are presumptively knowing and enforceable)
- Ex parte Delaney, 207 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. Crim. App.) (pre-sentencing, non-bargained waivers of appeal are invalid)
- Ex parte Broadway, 301 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. Crim. App.) (waiver of appeal may be valid when consideration is given by the State even if sentencing not agreed)
- Marsh v. State, 444 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. Crim. App.) (if waiver valid, proper remedy is dismissal of appeal)