Jimmy DeShawn Mosley, Jr. v. State
12-14-00305-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 5, 2015Background
- Jimmy DeShawn Mosley, Jr. was indicted for capital murder and entered a negotiated guilty plea.
- Under the plea agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at life imprisonment without parole, in accordance with the State’s recommendation.
- The trial court also ordered Mosley to reimburse court costs and court‑appointed attorney’s fees as part of the judgment.
- The trial court’s certification of the right to appeal limited appeals to matters raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial (TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2)).
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders/Gainous brief concluding no nonfrivolous issues exist; Mosley filed a pro se brief challenging the imposition of costs and fees.
- The Court of Appeals conducted an independent review, found no reversible error, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by assessing court costs and attorney’s fees | Mosley argued the court improperly imposed costs/fees and sought review of that order | State argued (and appellate court applied rule) Mosley lacks appellate right on that issue because it was not raised by written pretrial motion | Court held it lacked jurisdiction to consider the costs/fees challenge and affirmed judgment |
| Whether any arguable nonfrivolous appellate issues exist from the pretrial motions raised | Mosley (through counsel) did not identify nonfrivolous issues raised before trial | Appellate counsel performed record review and argued the appeal is frivolous under Anders/Gainous | Court held Anders brief adequate, found no reversible error, granted counsel leave to withdraw |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (counsel must file brief identifying any arguable issues when asking to withdraw for frivolous appeal)
- Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) (Texas counterpart applying Anders procedures)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (appellate court may conduct independent review when counsel files Anders‑type brief)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (procedural guidance on counsel’s duty and motions to withdraw in Anders context)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standards for evaluating Anders briefs and counsel withdrawal)