Kenneth L. Brown v. State
01-15-00357-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 9, 2015Background
- Kenneth L. Brown was indicted for first‑degree aggravated robbery (use of a firearm) with two prior felony enhancements, exposing him to 25–99 years.
- Victims Brittany Spates and Curley Carter were robbed at gunpoint outside their apartment on June 1, 2013; both phones were taken. Police tracked a victim’s "Find My iPhone" signal to a black Toyota Camry. Officers observed two men exit the vehicle; phones matching the victims’ were in the car.
- Spates identified Brown at the scene within about 30–45 minutes as the man who held the gun; a handgun was recovered near the location where Brown was detained. Officer Miller also identified Brown as a person who exited the Camry.
- Brown was convicted of aggravated robbery; he pleaded true to both enhancement paragraphs and received a 38‑year sentence. No motion for new trial was filed.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal is frivolous after reviewing the record and moved to withdraw, identifying and addressing potential issues (indictment sufficiency, pretrial rulings, trial objections, sufficiency of evidence, sentencing, and ineffective assistance) and notifying Brown of his rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of indictment/enhancements | Indictment/enhancements might be defective | Indictment tracks statute; enhancements give adequate notice | Indictment and enhancements sufficient; no meritorious challenge |
| Failure to obtain rulings on pretrial motions | Appellant relies on several filed pro se and counsel motions | Many motions were not presented; pro se motions not controlling; issues waived | No preserved error; no viable appellate claims from listed motions |
| Adverse rulings/objections at trial (evidence, jury argument) | Trial rulings and some objections could have been erroneous | Objections were largely form‑based; court sustained key objections; argument not extreme | No arguable reversible error; objections were not meritorious |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support conviction | Evidence might be insufficient or ID unreliable | Rapid ID, recovered phones, officer ID, and circumstances support conviction | Evidence legally sufficient; challenge would fail |
| Sentence proportionality (Eighth Amendment) | 38 years is excessive/cruel and unusual | Sentence within statutory enhanced range (25–99); no timely objection preserved | Claim waived; sentence within statutory range and not frivolous to litigate here |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to file motions / provide adequate representation | Record does not show deficient performance; many claims better raised in post‑conviction writ | No arguable direct‑appeal ineffective assistance claim; better raised in habeas/11.07 proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures when appointed counsel finds appeal frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Anders‑style brief standards in Texas)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (counsel must reference record and discuss possible issues when seeking withdrawal)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (procedure when appeal has arguable grounds and appointment of new counsel)
- Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (appellate court’s review and disposition when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (preservation requirement for proportionality/constitutional sentencing complaints)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (Eighth Amendment proportionality analysis)
- Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (notice obligations to client after counsel withdrawal)