419 S.W.3d 553
Tex. App.2013Background
- Appellant James Wilmurth pleaded no contest to assaulting his girlfriend and received deferred adjudication for three years, a $500 fine, and no contact with the alleged victim.
- The State later filed motions to adjudicate guilt based on violations of community supervision, including new offenses and failure to pay fines and fees.
- At the first adjudication hearing, the court continued supervision and imposed 170 days in jail along with increased court fees.
- A second motion to adjudicate alleged additional violations, including assault on a non-family member, terroristic threats, drug possession, and alcohol-related violations; Wilmurth pled true to some conditions and the court adjudicated guilt, revoking supervision and sentencing five years’ confinement plus fines and costs.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw; Wilmurth did not file a pro se brief, and the court determined no reversible error existed.
- The court affirmed the judgment, modified to strike attorney’s fees, and denied appointment of substitute counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Anders brief demonstrates no reversible error | Wilmurth's appeal lacks reversible errors per record | State agrees no reversible error is present | No reversible error; appeal not meritorious |
| Whether attorney’s fees could be assessed against Wilmurth | Attorney’s fees are improper against Wilmurth | Fees may be assessed as part of costs | Judgment modified to delete attorney’s fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes procedure for frivolous-appeal claims)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (Anders procedure in Texas)
- Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) (briefs outlining Anders requirements)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (no reversible error under Anders framework)
- Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (proper procedures for briefing and withdrawal)
- Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996) (court-approved withdrawal procedures)
- Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (indigent-status presumption during proceedings)