Cardae Arthur Davis v. State
02-16-00074-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 23, 2016Background
- Appellant Cardae Arthur Davis was charged with aggravated robbery (first-degree felony) and burglary; he entered an open plea agreeing to plead guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (a lesser-included, second-degree felony).
- The State agreed to dismiss the burglary count and two other pending causes in exchange for Davis’s guilty plea to aggravated assault.
- After a presentence investigation, the trial court found Davis guilty and sentenced him to four years’ confinement.
- Davis’s court‑appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief asserting the appeal is frivolous; Davis and the State filed no responses.
- The court independently reviewed the record, agreed the appeal was frivolous, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The opinion notes a discrepancy in the trial-court certification of appeal rights: the court struck language saying the defendant had no right to appeal and certified that Davis had the right to appeal; the opinion clarifies appeal rights are limited under an open plea affecting punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel may withdraw under Anders because the appeal is frivolous | Davis (through counsel) argued there are no nonfrivolous grounds; counsel moved to withdraw | State did not oppose; Davis filed no pro se response | Court performed independent review, agreed the appeal is frivolous, granted withdrawal and affirmed judgment |
| Whether Davis retained a right to appeal given the plea bargain affecting punishment | Not asserted (no successful challenge raised) | Trial court certification initially indicated no right to appeal but was struck through and recertified that Davis had the right | Court clarified an open plea (charge bargain affecting punishment) limits appeals to pretrial matters preserved by motion; nonetheless the appeal presented no viable issues and was affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural framework for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (appellate court must independently review record after Anders brief)
- Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995) (discussing Anders procedures at state level)
- United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901 (5th Cir. 1998) (considerations for reviewing court when counsel files Anders brief)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standards for evaluating Anders briefs and independent review)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (authority on frivolous-appeal determination)
- Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (procedures and notes on appeal rights after guilty pleas)
- Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (requirements for perfecting appeal after plea)
- Zapata v. State, 449 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (treating aggravated assault as a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery)