Joshua Marques Willis v. State
10-15-00409-CR
Tex. App.Oct 5, 2016Background
- Defendant Joshua Marques Willis convicted of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (cocaine), over 4g and under 200g; sentence: life, enhanced by a prior robbery sentence.
- Trial court assessed punishment; judgment reflected conviction and enhanced life sentence stacked on a prior 60-year sentence.
- Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no non-frivolous issues; Willis filed a pro se response raising multiple claims (e.g., insufficiency, evidentiary error, jury-readback issue, misconduct, ineffective assistance, weight of cocaine, sentence stacking).
- Court of Appeals conducted a full Anders review of the record and counsel’s brief, considered Willis’s pro se response, and found the appeal wholly frivolous.
- Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, denied motion to abate and remand, and instructed counsel on obligations under Texas appellate rules regarding client notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove illegal type/amount of cocaine | Willis: evidence did not prove the substance was the illegal form or that he possessed the charged amount | State: evidence admitted at trial supported conviction and quantity | Court: rejected Willis’s sufficiency claims; appeal lacks arguable merit |
| Evidentiary rulings re: extraneous offenses and rules 403/404(b)/405/406 | Willis: trial court abused discretion by admitting extraneous-possession evidence and violating evidentiary rules | State: evidence admissible for relevant purposes; no reversible abuse shown | Court: found no reversible evidentiary error in record review |
| Jury procedure and foreman misconduct (testimony readback) | Willis: court improperly deprived jury of officer’s testimony readback; foreman refused instructions | State: no reversible error shown from readback request/foreman conduct | Court: no arguable ground shown for reversal based on readback/foreman issues |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (various failures) | Willis: counsel failed to object, exclude officer’s testimony, prepare not-guilty defense, and challenge amount | State: counsel’s Anders review met duties; no arguable ineffective assistance on record | Court: counsel performed required duties; ineffective-assistance claims deemed frivolous |
| Sentencing/stacking error | Willis: trial court erred in stacking sentences | State: enhancement and stacking supported by record/statute | Court: affirmed sentence; no reversible error found |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for appointed counsel to brief frivolous appeals and request withdrawal)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (definition of frivolous appellate arguments)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (Anders review and arguable grounds standard)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (procedures and counsel obligations in Anders appeals)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (affirming Anders-process outcomes where appeal is frivolous)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (counsel duties in appellate representation)
- Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997) (procedural note cited by court)