James Leon Boswell v. State
12-16-00196-CR
Tex. App.Aug 9, 2017Background
- James Leon Boswell was indicted for theft of property valued $20,000–$100,000 from an elderly person.
- Under a plea bargain Boswell pleaded guilty, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed him on ten years’ community supervision.
- The State filed an application to proceed to final adjudication; Boswell pleaded “true” to the allegations in that motion.
- After hearing, the trial court adjudicated guilt, revoked community supervision, sentenced Boswell to 15 years’ imprisonment, and ordered restitution of $64,345.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders/Gainous brief asserting the appeal is frivolous and moved to withdraw; the court conducted an independent review of the record.
- The Court of Appeals found no reversible error, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial-court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel complied with Anders/Gainous and may withdraw | Boswell (through counsel) had no non-frivolous issues to raise; counsel followed Anders procedure | State supported withdrawal and review | Court held counsel complied with Anders/Gainous/High/Kelly; granted motion to withdraw |
| Whether the adjudication, revocation, conviction, and sentence contain reversible error | Boswell implicitly argued (via record) that errors existed or review warranted | State argued record supports adjudication and sentence; no reversible error | Court’s independent review found no reversible error; affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes duties of appointed counsel to identify non-frivolous issues and move to withdraw)
- Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) (Texas guidance on Anders procedures)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (appellate court’s independent review obligation)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (procedural context for Anders-style withdrawals)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (requirements and procedures for counsel’s motion to withdraw and record handling)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (duty to provide appellant copy of Anders brief and facilitate pro se review)