Freddie Crochett IV v. State
09-15-00464-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 26, 2016Background
- Appellant Freddie Crochett IV pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon; the trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to 30 years' confinement after a punishment hearing.
- Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal is frivolous and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal; the court allowed Crochett to file a pro se brief.
- In his pro se brief Crochett asserted two issues: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) involuntariness of his guilty plea, alleging he was misled about probation eligibility.
- The plea hearing transcript shows the trial court admonished Crochett, he testified the plea was his free choice, and he acknowledged the range of punishment and weapons enhancement.
- Crochett did not raise ineffective-assistance claims in a motion for new trial, and the appellate record contains no testimony from trial counsel explaining strategy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Crochett: counsel rendered deficient representation that affected outcome | State: record is silent; counsel presumed reasonable; no developed facts showing deficiency or prejudice | Court: Claim fails—record does not affirmatively demonstrate deficient performance or prejudice; silent record presumed reasonable strategy |
| Voluntariness of guilty plea | Crochett: plea not voluntary; induced by erroneous advice that he was eligible for probation | State: court properly admonished Crochett; plea and written stipulations show knowing, voluntary plea; no record support for alleged promises | Court: Claim fails—proper admonishments created prima facie voluntariness; appellant failed to show misunderstanding or harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure when counsel finds appeal frivolous)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (appellate duties on Anders review)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (options for court of appeals when faced with Anders brief)
- Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (explaining that courts may explain why Anders issues lack merit)
- Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (requirement that ineffective-assistance claims be firmly founded in the record)
- Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (silent records generally inadequate to support ineffective-assistance claims)
- Ex parte Moussazadeh, 361 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (plea induced by erroneous advice of counsel may invalidate voluntariness)
- Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (burden on appellant to develop facts supporting ineffective-assistance claim)