Christopher Cobos v. State
11-15-00210-CR
Tex. App.Jan 20, 2017Background
- Christopher Cobos was convicted by a jury of assault-family-violence with a prior conviction and an enhancement; punishment assessed at 12 years' confinement.
- Trial court entered judgment consistent with the jury verdict and enhancement finding.
- Court-appointed appellate counsel, a board-certified criminal appellate attorney, filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw after concluding the appeal was frivolous.
- Counsel provided Cobos the brief, reporter’s record, clerk’s record, notice of rights, and a motion to permit pro se access; Cobos filed a lengthy pro se response.
- The Eleventh Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record under Anders/Schulman procedures and determined no reversible error existed.
- The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, dismissed the appeal, and advised Cobos of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's (Cobos) Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arguable grounds for appeal exist under Anders/Schulman | Cobos (pro se) raised multiple complaints in response to counsel’s Anders brief asserting errors warranting relief | State implicitly argues counsel correctly concluded appeal frivolous and no reversible error appears | Court held the appeal is frivolous, found no reversible error, dismissed the appeal and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw |
| Whether counsel complied with Anders procedural requirements | Counsel contends she complied by filing brief, providing records, and notifying Cobos of rights | State agrees counsel met procedural obligations | Court found counsel complied with Anders and related Texas authorities |
| Whether remand for new counsel is required because of arguable issues | Cobos’s pro se filings seek further review and argue errors exist needing briefing | State opposes remand, asserting no arguable issues exist | Court held no arguable issues present and remand for new counsel was unnecessary |
| Notice of right to seek further review | Cobos argues for preservation of appellate rights | State notes procedural requirement to notify defendant of PDR rights | Court ordered counsel to notify Cobos and independently advised him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure when counsel believes appeal is frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Texas procedure for handling Anders briefs and pro se responses)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (counsel duties on Anders review clarified)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standards for appellate review of Anders brief)