Kevin Cobb v. State
07-15-00142-CR
| Tex. | Jun 8, 2015Background
- Kevin Cobb was convicted after a jury trial in Burnet County Court at Law No. 4 for misdemeanor violation of a protective order (Tex. Pen. Code § 25.07); punishment assessed at 365 days jail and $4,000 fine.
- Incident occurred August 7, 2014 at a Travis County gentleman’s club where the complainant, Evelen Gamboa, worked and for whom a Williamson County protective order was in effect.
- A club manager, Aaron Fawcett, testified that Cobb was at the club looking for Gamboa and that Cobb acknowledged he knew he was not supposed to be there; defense objected to portions of this testimony.
- Detectives responded, reviewed the club’s copy of the protective order (not in law‑enforcement databases), and took statements from Gamboa and Fawcett; the protective order was not signed by Cobb according to an investigator.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no nonfrivolous issues for appeal and identified a potentially arguable hearsay/knowledge issue relating to Fawcett’s testimony; counsel sought leave to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Fawcett’s testimony about Cobb’s knowledge of the protective order | Testimony established Cobb knew of the order and that he admitted he shouldn’t be at the club | Testimony was speculative/conclusory and invited hearsay; trial objections preserved some points | Trial court allowed testimony; appellate counsel concluded any objections were not properly preserved or lack merit, so no reversible error identified |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Cobb knew about the protective order | State relied on manager’s testimony, club records, victim statements, and detective investigation | Defense argued no direct statement from Cobb recorded and protective order not in official databases; lack of signed order undermines knowledge proof | Appellate brief treats evidence as sufficient or any error unpreserved; no arguable appellate issue found |
| Preservation of error for appeal regarding hearsay | State points to the record showing objections were made and overruled as to some questions | Defense contends state did not elicit the specific statement and failed to preserve complaints about later testimony | Appellate counsel concluded objections were not renewed or insufficient to preserve reversible error under Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a) |
| Appropriateness of counsel withdrawing under Anders | N/A (State does not oppose procedural compliance) | Counsel says brief complies with Anders and related authorities; requests leave to withdraw | Appellate counsel requests withdrawal after presenting facts and potential issues; court will consider Anders brief standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural requirements for appointed counsel seeking to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- Benson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (additional authority regarding counsel’s duty when concluding appeal is frivolous)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (Texas precedent addressing Anders‑type filings)