Jacob Owen Edwards v. State
02-16-00377-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- Jacob Owen Edwards had a 2012 DWI conviction suspended and was placed on community supervision beginning January 2014.
- While on supervision, Edwards was arrested in May 2014 and charged with DWI with a previous DWI and driving while license invalid with a prior conviction; he stipulated to a .202 blood-alcohol result.
- The State amended its motion to revoke Edwards’s community supervision based on those new offenses; Edwards pleaded true to the revocation allegations and the court revoked supervision and imposed jail time and fines.
- Edwards’s retained appellate counsel concluded there were no nonfrivolous issues to raise, informed the court he would not file a brief, and later filed a motion to withdraw citing Anders grounds.
- The appellate court abated for a hearing; the trial court found Edwards wished to pursue the appeal, was not indigent, and declined new counsel; the appellate court nevertheless found the motion to withdraw deficient under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5 and denied it, but independently reviewed the record and affirmed the convictions and revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retained counsel may withdraw by filing an Anders-style motion without complying with Tex. R. App. P. 6.5 | Edwards (through retained counsel) argued counsel found no nonfrivolous issues and sought to withdraw | State argued counsel must follow Rule 6.5; court must decide sufficiency | Court held retained counsel must comply with Rule 6.5; counsel’s motion failed Rule 6.5 requirements and was denied |
| Whether the Anders procedural safeguards apply to retained counsel | Edwards (via counsel) relied on Anders to justify withdrawal | State and court noted Anders is for appointed counsel; retained counsel must use Rule 6.5 procedures | Court reiterated Anders protections do not apply the same to retained counsel; Rule 6.5 governs retained-counsel withdrawal |
| Whether counsel’s motion to withdraw met Rule 6.5 technical requirements | Counsel asserted inability to find arguable grounds (Anders) | State pointed to missing items (deadline, address, proof of service, notice of right to object) | Court found the motion deficient under Rule 6.5 and denied it |
| Whether appellate court must retain an appeal once retained counsel represents it frivolous and appellant does not respond | Edwards did not file a pro se response after being notified; counsel characterized appeal as frivolous | State argued court may consider the record and dismiss if frivolous; public interest in resolving appeals | Court said no rule requires keeping appeal on docket forever; in interest of justice it independently reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming judgments |
Key Cases Cited
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1988) (ethical limits on counsel pursuing frivolous claims)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures for appointed counsel who seek to withdraw because appeal is frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App.) (treatment of Anders procedure in Texas appellate practice)
- Lopez v. State, 283 S.W.3d 479 (Tex. App.—Texarkana) (retained counsel and Anders-related discussion)
- Pena v. State, 932 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. App.—El Paso) (retained counsel’s obligations to move to withdraw under appellate rules)
- Torres v. State, 271 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. App.—Amarillo) (appellate court review and disposition when counsel deems appeal frivolous)