Jucup, Mario Lopez, PD-1623-14

Background

Appellant Mario Lopez Jucup, an indigent Spanish‑speaker, was convicted after a bench trial of continuous sexual abuse of a child and sentenced to 30 years. He waived jury and represented himself at trial after contesting appointed counsel's failure to consult with him.
After conviction, court‑appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal was wholly frivolous and moved to withdraw; counsel provided the brief and record to Jucup.
Jucup filed a pro se petition for discretionary review raising that appellate counsel failed to disclose record facts showing (1) his request to self‑represent was conditional, (2) trial admonishments about waiver and evidence were incorrect, (3) trial court should have dismissed appointed counsel for inadequate consultation, (4) a jury waiver occurred without appointed counsel/admonishment, and (5) the judgment miscredited pretrial custody/back‑time.
The Fifth Court of Appeals reviewed the Anders brief, pro se response, and record, concluded the appeal was frivolous, modified the judgment to correct sex‑offender registration language and victim age, and affirmed as modified.
Jucup asks the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to clarify Anders‑related standards: (a) what level of due diligence appellate counsel must exercise in assaying the record and what must be disclosed in an Anders brief, and (b) the scope and measure of the court of appeals’ independent review to determine whether an appeal is "wholly frivolous."

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jucup)	Defendant's Argument (State / COA)	Held
Adequacy of appellate counsel's Anders investigation	Anders brief omitted key record facts showing counsel failed to exercise sufficient diligence (should have disclosed conditional waiver, incorrect admonishments, counsel's lack of consultation, jury waiver without counsel, clerical back‑time error).	Counsel filed an Anders brief meeting Anders requirements and provided the record; COA found the brief adequate.	COA held counsel’s Anders brief met requirements and the appeal was frivolous; CCA review sought to clarify standards.
Validity of Faretta/self‑representation waiver	Waiver was conditional (requested self‑rep only if court refused new counsel), and admonishments were incorrect, so waiver was not knowing/intelligent/voluntary.	Trial court accepted waiver; record reflects appellant waived and proceeded pro se.	COA did not find an arguable issue on waiver; Jucup seeks further review to define standards for assessing such waivers in Anders context.
Duty to appoint counsel before accepting jury waiver and need for admonishments	Trial court allegedly accepted jury waiver without appointing counsel as required by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 1.13(c) and did not admonish about jury right; Jucup argues jury waiver therefore invalid.	Trial court accepted waiver; COA did not treat this as an arguable issue.	COA did not reverse; Jucup requests CCA guidance on mandatory appointment and admonishment requirements when self‑representation and jury waiver overlap.
Clerical error: back‑time credit (pretrial custody/detainer)	Judgment credited only limited custody period; record shows a detainer lodged earlier—correction would benefit appellant and is correctable on appeal.	COA corrected sex‑offender registration wording but did not find back‑time credit to be an arguable issue favoring appellant.	COA modified judgment only for sex‑offender registration/victim age and affirmed; Jucup argues the back‑time error is an arguable, correctable clerical mistake.
Scope of court of appeals’ independent Anders review	COA’s review was insufficiently detailed and selectively examined record; need clarity on how much of the record must be read and what constitutes "wholly frivolous" (harmful/reversible error vs. any favorable reformation).	COA applied Anders/Schulman/Bledsoe framework, stated it reviewed the record, and found no arguable grounds.	COA found appeal frivolous after review; Jucup asks the CCA to define measurable standards for the appellate review and what qualifies as a non‑frivolous ("arguable") issue.

Key Cases Cited

Anders v. California, 385 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for counsel withdrawing when appeal is frivolous and requirement of court review)
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (U.S. 2000) (clarifies Anders‑related procedures and counsel’s duties on appeal)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1988) (discusses counsel’s obligations and client autonomy)
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Texas guidance on Anders procedures and appellate duties)
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (discusses duties of counsel and appellate court in Anders cases)
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (appellate court’s duty when reviewing an Anders submission)
Ex parte Bynum, 772 S.W.2d 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (authority on credit for pretrial custody/back‑time)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (requirements for record‑based voluntariness of waivers of constitutional rights)