Martin Shawn Carswell v. State
11-17-00172-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- Appellant Martin Shawn Carswell pleaded guilty to felony driving while intoxicated with a true enhancement; the jury found him guilty and assessed punishment at 20 years confinement and a $2,000 fine.
- Court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw accompanied by an Anders-style brief concluding the appeal is frivolous and provided Carswell with the brief, records, and notice of his rights.
- Appellant filed a pro se response stating he "done wrong" but that a 20-year sentence is "asinine" and that he felt improperly represented.
- The court independently reviewed the clerk’s and reporter’s records under the Anders/Schulman procedures.
- The court concluded there were no arguable grounds for appeal and dismissed the appeal, granting counsel's motion to withdraw.
- The court advised Carswell of his right to file a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and noted counsel’s duty to provide the opinion and notification to the client.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel complied with Anders procedures and whether counsel should be allowed to withdraw | Carswell contends he was improperly represented (ineffective assistance claim) | Counsel asserts she complied with Anders/Schulman requirements and the appeal is frivolous | Court found counsel complied with Anders/Schulman and granted withdrawal |
| Whether the appeal presents arguable grounds for reversal | Carswell argues sentence (20 years) is excessive/unjust | State implies no reversible error in record; procedural posture supports dismissal | Court independently reviewed record and found no arguable grounds; appeal frivolous |
| Whether remand for new counsel is required when pro se complaint raises representation concerns | Carswell’s pro se claim alleges improper representation, implying need for further briefing | State/record: pro se remarks insufficient to show arguable appellate issues requiring remand | Court held pro se assertions did not create arguable grounds; no remand necessary |
| Whether Appellant must be informed of right to petition for discretionary review | Carswell should be informed to preserve discretionary-review options | Court/counsel must notify defendant of PDR rights under Texas rules | Court noted counsel’s obligation and advised Appellant of right to file PDR |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (requires independent appellate review when counsel files an Anders brief)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (addresses appellate counsel’s duties and Anders-type procedures in Texas)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (clarifies appellate court options after Anders/Schulman review)