Derrick Massey v. State
02-16-00096-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 30, 2017Background
- Derrick Massey was indicted for DWI, alleged as a third-degree felony based on four prior DWI convictions (including two prior felonies).
- Massey pled not guilty at trial but admitted the jurisdictional allegations of two prior DWI convictions.
- A jury found him guilty; he elected the trial court to assess punishment and admitted the felony enhancement paragraphs.
- The trial court sentenced Massey to 45 years’ imprisonment, within the enhanced range created by prior felony DWIs.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw, asserting the appeal is frivolous; Massey filed a pro se response.
- The Court of Appeals conducted an independent review, agreed the appeal lacked arguable merit, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there are non-frivolous appellate issues warranting reversal | Massey (pro se) contended issues exist in the record (pro se response asserted errors) | Appellate counsel argued no non-frivolous issues exist and moved to withdraw under Anders | Court reviewed record independently and held no arguable grounds for relief; appeal is frivolous and affirmed |
| Whether Anders procedures were satisfied | N/A (issue raised by counsel’s compliance) | Counsel maintained the Anders brief met requirements | Court found counsel’s Anders filing adequate |
| Whether prior convictions properly enhanced punishment | Massey implicitly challenged sentencing via pro se filings | State relied on Massey’s admitted prior convictions and enhancement statutes | Court accepted admitted priors and enhancement; sentence affirmed |
| Whether appointment of appellate counsel and withdrawal were appropriate | Massey could have argued counsel failed to identify issues | Counsel asserted proper representation and procedure followed | Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw after independent review |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (application of Anders in Texas appellate practice)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (court must independently review record after Anders filing)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (scope of appellate counsel withdrawal review)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standard for finding no arguable grounds on appeal)
- Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (noting procedure when appellate counsel concludes appeal is frivolous)