Brandon Durrell Medford v. State
12-14-00109-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 2, 2015Background
- Brandon Durrell Medford was indicted for indecency with a child and pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea, receiving five years deferred adjudication supervision.
- The State later filed an application to proceed to final adjudication, alleging violations of the terms of community supervision.
- Medford pleaded true to the alleged violations; the trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated his guilt, and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders/Gainous brief concluding there were no arguable grounds for appeal and moved to withdraw.
- The Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record, found no reversible error, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The opinion informs Medford of his right to seek discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the procedural deadlines and options for doing so.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there are any arguable appellate issues warranting reversal or further briefing | The State contends the record contains no reversible error; no affirmative argument for reversal is advanced by the State on appeal | Medford (through counsel) asserts no arguable grounds for appeal after review of the record; no pro se brief filed | Court independently reviewed the record, found the appeal wholly frivolous, affirmed conviction and permitted counsel to withdraw |
| Whether appellate counsel may withdraw under Anders/Gainous procedures | The State does not oppose compliance with Anders procedures | Counsel requests leave to withdraw after filing an Anders/Gainous brief and certifying client was provided a copy | Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw after carrying the motion with the merits and finding compliance with applicable precedents |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (established counsel’s duties when presenting a frivolous appeal)
- Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Texas authority on counsel’s Anders-type obligations)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discusses appellate counsel’s professional evaluation and independent court review)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App.) (addresses procedures when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App.) (clarifies Anders procedures and counsel’s duties to the client when withdrawing)