Michael Oduro Kwarteng v. State, 01-13-00909-CR

Appellant Michael Oduro Kwarteng pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault (one with a deadly weapon; one causing serious bodily injury) after shooting a woman and a 14‑year‑old boy; he turned himself in hours later.
Pleas and sentencing were unagreed; the trial court ordered a PSI and sentenced Kwarteng to 10 years’ imprisonment on each count, concurrent.
Kwarteng signed written admonishments and a written judicial confession; he waived jury trial and confrontation and stipulated to proof of every element under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 1.15.
No pretrial suppression or quash motions were filed; a motion to substitute counsel was granted and motions for community supervision were filed.
No competency issue was raised in the trial court; the plea documents state Kwarteng was mentally competent and pleaded freely and voluntarily.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of indictments	Indictments track statutory elements for aggravated assault	Kwarteng did not move to quash; no challenge preserved	Indictments sufficient
Compliance with plea admonishments (Art. 26.13 / Padilla)	Court provided written admonishments; Kwarteng is a U.S. citizen so Padilla not implicated	Kwarteng does not argue inadequate admonishments	Admonishments complied with art. 26.13; Padilla inapplicable
Competency to plead	Trial record and plea form show Kwarteng was competent and understood proceedings	No competency claim raised at trial	No basis to find incompetency; Dusky standard met on record
Voluntariness of plea / evidence to support plea	Written confession and stipulation contain required elements; plea waiver valid under art. 1.15	Kwarteng did not assert plea involuntariness	Plea presumed knowing and voluntary; sufficient evidence supported plea
Sentencing range & judgment accuracy	Sentence of 10 years per count is within second‑degree felony range; judgments reflect imposed sentences and credit for time served	No challenge to sentencing range or judgments	Sentences lawful and judgments accurate
Ineffective assistance / fundamental error	Record review shows no preserved errors or fundamental defects; no objections at sentencing	Kwarteng did not present specific complaints	No non‑frivolous ineffective‑assistance or fundamental‑error claims identified

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures when appellate counsel seeks to withdraw for frivolous appeal)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960) (standard for competency to stand trial)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (counsel’s advice re: immigration consequences of plea)
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (Anders brief content requirements on appeal)
Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (sufficiency of evidence to support guilty plea under art. 1.15)