Brodrick Walker v. State
06-16-00105-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 20, 2017Background
- Broderick Walker was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and received two life sentences.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no meritorious grounds for appeal and moved to withdraw, providing Walker the record and advising his right to file a pro se response.
- Walker filed a pro se response raising: (1) the charging instrument was defective because it was signed by a peace officer rather than the victim, (2) an actual-innocence claim, and (3) claims that the Bowie County DA colluded with the Public Defender’s Office to conceal exculpatory evidence.
- The Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the entire appellate record as required in Anders proceedings.
- The court concluded the appeal was wholly frivolous and found no arguable issues to support reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Walker's Argument | State's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Charging instrument defect | Complaint defective because signed by a peace officer, not the victim | Complaint legally sufficient; no reversible defect identified | Rejected — no merit |
| Actual innocence | Walker asserts he is actually innocent of the charged offenses | Evidence and record do not support actual-innocence claim | Rejected — no merit |
| Prosecutorial collusion / evidence concealment | DA colluded with Public Defender to hide exculpatory evidence, constituting fraud/obstruction | No record support for these allegations | Rejected — no merit |
| Anders withdrawal / frivolity determination | Counsel argues no arguable issues and seeks to withdraw under Anders | Court must independently review record and either dismiss or affirm | Court independently reviewed, found appeal frivolous, affirmed judgment and granted counsel leave to withdraw |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds that an appeal is frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standards for Anders-style briefs in Texas)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (appellate counsel’s duties in evaluating and presenting potential issues)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (procedural guidance on Anders appeals)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (independent appellate review required when counsel files an Anders brief)