Leandre Morris III v. State
03-16-00116-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 21, 2017Background
- Appellant Leandre Morris III was tried and convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery, with punishment enhanced to habitual-offender status based on a prior aggravated robbery, and sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment.
- Witnesses at the Burger King robbery identified the robber as a short, thin, dark-skinned male with a limp, wearing dark clothes, black gloves, and a Presidential Halloween mask; he carried a gun and a white-and-red plastic grocery bag and shot employee Marcos Gomez.
- Surveillance and witness testimony tied a white SUV with temporary “Long Motors” tags to the getaway; Long Motors identified Morris as the purchaser and matched his description and limp.
- Police arrested Morris and searched his hotel room, recovering black gloves, dark clothing, a Ronald Reagan mask, a white-and-red grocery bag, purchase paperwork for the white SUV, and a revolver with three expended cartridges matching the type of gun used to wound Gomez.
- Morris was indicted, tried, and convicted; his appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting the appeal was frivolous and moved to withdraw; Morris filed no pro se response or issues.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and counsel’s Anders brief, found no arguable appellate issues, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Morris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/identification of perpetrator | Trial evidence (witness IDs, Long Motors ID, matching physical attributes, and items found in hotel) supports conviction | Identity contested implicitly; no meritorious appellate challenge raised | Court found the record contains evidence supporting the conviction; no arguable sufficiency/identity claim |
| Admissibility/validity of arrest and search | Officers obtained and executed arrest and search warrants based on investigatory leads and CI; items found properly tied to case | No viable challenge asserted on appeal to warrant validity or evidence suppression | Court found no arguable ground in record challenging warrants or seized evidence |
| Enhancement to habitual-offender status | Prior conviction established for enhancement under Texas law | No viable appellate challenge to enhancement presented | Enhancement applied and upheld; no arguable issue in record |
| Counsel’s Anders brief and motion to withdraw | Counsel complied with Anders requirements and certified client notification and access to record | Morris did not file a pro se response or identify issues | Court agreed the appeal was frivolous, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (appellate-counsel withdrawal and court review obligations)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (Texas authority on frivolous-appeal procedures)
- Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (procedural standards for appellate counsel withdrawal)
- Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (standards on appellate review of counsel’s withdrawal)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (requirements for providing appellant access to the appellate record)