Johnson, Morris Landon Ii
PD-0911-15
Tex. App.—WacoSep 18, 2015Background
- Johnson was convicted of delivery of one gram or more but less than four grams of methamphetamine, with an enhancement, and sentenced to forty years and a $5,000 fine in Hood County.
- Trial occurred after a pre-trial suppression hearing focused on text-message information; the hearing was denied.
- At trial, a prepared subpoena for a witness (Camon Buchannon) was not served, and no prior notice of the failure was provided.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; Johnson filed a pro se response identifying several issues.
- The Second Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and granted counsel’s withdrawal; discretionary review was sought by Johnson.
- The PDR argues the Anders brief was based on an incomplete record and that appellate proceedings violated the right to compulsory process and confrontation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can an Anders brief stand on an incomplete record? | Johnson argues incomplete record precludes adequate Anders review. | Johnson contends counsel failed to develop the record and protect rights. | Yes; discretionary review granted on incomplete-record grounds; record requires further review. |
| Can the COA decision stand on an incomplete record? | Johnson asserts denial of compulsory process and confrontation compromised the record. | State argues the record supports the COA decision despite gaps. | Yes; the court found the record sufficiently supported by law and affirmed the judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. State, 386 U.S. 734 (1967) (standard for evaluating counsel's Anders brief)
- Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995) (remanded when misstatement in sentencing occurred in Anders context)
- Colman v. State, 915 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996) (right to subpoena and witness testing; reversed in some contexts)
- Mitten v. State, 145 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (subpoena rights; remand considerations on record)
- Pena v. State, 932 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997) (concerning appellate review and record adequacy)