Kenneth Wiley v. State
10-15-00210-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 3, 2015Background
- Kenneth Wiley entered open guilty pleas to five indictments charging possession of child pornography and was sentenced after a punishment hearing to seven years' imprisonment on each conviction, to run consecutively.
- Appellant was represented on appeal by court-appointed counsel who filed Anders-style briefs and motions to withdraw in each case, stating no arguable grounds for appeal after reviewing the records.
- Counsel complied with Anders requirements: examined the record, provided Appellant copies of the briefs and records, and informed him of his right to file a pro se response.
- Appellant did not file a pro se response or any pro se filings challenging the convictions or sentences.
- The Tenth Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the records as required under Anders/Penson and found no arguable grounds for appeal, affirming the trial court judgments.
- The court granted counsel's motions to withdraw and ordered counsel to notify Appellant of the opinion and his right to seek discretionary review; no new appellate counsel will be appointed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel's Anders brief adequately showed no arguable appealable issues | Wiley (via counsel) contended no arguable issues exist after record review | State urged affirmance; counsel complied with Anders/High/Schulman requirements | Court found the Anders briefs adequate and performed independent review; no arguable issues found |
| Whether the record contains reversible error in plea, sentencing, or proceedings | Wiley did not file pro se objections or identify errors | State maintained record showed lawful pleas and sentencing proceedings | Court reviewed record and found nothing to arguably support reversal; affirmed judgments |
| Whether counsel may be allowed to withdraw on appeal under Anders | Wiley has a right to counsel but counsel sought withdrawal per Anders | State did not oppose withdrawal pending proper notice to Wiley | Court granted counsel's motions to withdraw and ordered counsel to notify Wiley of rights to petition for discretionary review |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (Anders procedure for appointed counsel to seek withdrawal when no nonfrivolous issues exist)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (appellate court must independently review record when counsel files Anders brief)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Texas guidance on content and procedure for Anders briefs)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App.) (procedural expectations for counsel and Anders compliance)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.) (counsel’s duty to explain lack of arguable appellate issues)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for appellate review of Anders briefs)
- Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App.) (notice requirements following counsel withdrawal on appeal)