Ex Parte Michael Thomas Paul
04-21-00316-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 21, 2021Background
- Appellant Michael Thomas Paul sought habeas relief under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.072; the trial court denied relief.
- Appellant’s court‑appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, concluding the appeal presented no arguable, nonfrivolous issues.
- The court held counsel’s motion in abeyance, provided Paul a copy of the appellate record, and set an initial deadline (Oct. 28, 2021) for a pro se brief.
- Paul filed a motion requesting additional time and asking the court for guidance on how to proceed.
- The court summarized the Anders/Stafford framework: counsel must file an Anders brief, appellant must be given the record and an opportunity to file a pro se brief, and the court will then conduct a full examination to decide frivolousness.
- The court granted an extension and ordered that, if Paul wishes to file a pro se brief, he must do so by November 10, 2021.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Paul) | Defendant's Argument (State/Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Anders withdrawal | Counsel contends appeal is wholly frivolous and filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw | Anders requires counsel to identify anything that might arguably support appeal, provide record, and seek permission to withdraw | Court accepted Anders procedure, held motion in abeyance and gave Paul the record |
| Right to file pro se brief and scope of review | Paul may raise any points he chooses in a pro se brief | Court must give appellant access to the record and an opportunity to file a pro se brief before deciding frivolousness | Paul was allowed to file a pro se brief; deadline extended |
| Request for additional time and guidance | Paul asked for more time and procedural guidance to prepare a pro se brief | Court’s role is limited to procedural direction; substantive guidance is not required | Court granted extension to Nov. 10, 2021 and provided procedural instruction to file by that date |
| Standard after pro se brief is filed | Paul may present any arguably meritorious grounds | Court will fully examine Anders brief, record, and any pro se brief; if nonfrivolous, appoint counsel; if frivolous, grant withdrawal and affirm | Court reiterated full‑examination standard and set consequences accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requires counsel to file brief identifying any arguable issues and permits withdrawal if appeal is frivolous)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (addresses counsel’s ethical duty not to prosecute frivolous appeals)
- Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (discusses counsel’s ethical obligation regarding frivolous appeals)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (explains appellant’s right to file a pro se brief and court’s full examination)
- Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (addresses appointment of counsel if an appeal is arguably meritorious)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same principle regarding counsel appointment when nonfrivolous issues exist)