James Bradley Warden v. State
03-15-00298-CR
Tex. App.Sep 24, 2015Background
- Appellant James Bradley Warden was convicted of evading arrest and possession of methamphetamine (<1 gram) and appealed.
- Appellate counsel Ken Mahaffey was appointed and reviewed the clerk’s and reporter’s records and applicable law.
- Counsel concluded the record contained no non-frivolous, reversible issues and prepared and filed an Anders brief seeking leave to withdraw.
- Counsel notified Warden by certified mail, explained Anders procedures and appellate limitations, and provided a pro se access motion and instructions for obtaining the appellate record.
- Counsel advised that claims unsupported by the direct-appeal record (e.g., ineffective assistance, new evidence) are typically raised by habeas corpus and not by supplementing the direct-appeal record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appointed counsel may withdraw under Anders when no arguable issues exist | Mahaffey: record contains no meritorious issues; withdrawal appropriate after filing Anders brief | Warden: (preserved right to file pro se brief and seek review) | Court to independently review record; Anders withdrawal procedure is appropriate if no arguable issues are found |
| Whether the record shows reversible error | Mahaffey: no trial errors shown in record that would warrant reversal | Warden: may assert issues pro se; some complaints may require an expanded record | No reversible error found in the existing record per counsel; court must independently confirm |
| Whether appellant was adequately notified of rights and provided access to the record | Mahaffey: served certified-letter explaining right to file pro se brief and provided a motion for access | Warden: seeks pro se access and extension to respond | Counsel served notice and motion; Warden submitted pro se motion for access and extension |
| Proper vehicle for claims not shown in direct-appeal record (e.g., ineffective assistance, new evidence) | Mahaffey: such claims require habeas corpus to develop a record | Warden: may wish to raise them but must create record via habeas | Court guidance: habeas (Art. 11.07) is proper route; appellate courts won't receive new evidence on direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (counsel must file brief and may seek to withdraw when no non-frivolous issues exist; appellate court must independently review the record)
- Nguyen v. State, 11 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. App. 2000) (discusses appointed counsel’s duties when seeking withdrawal on appeal)
- Aldrich v. State, 104 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (claims not shown in the direct-appeal record should be raised by habeas corpus)
- Oldham v. State, 977 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (appellate rules do not permit abatement to develop new evidence on direct appeal; habeas is the correct avenue)