Samantha Ann Dillard v. State
06-16-00159-CR
Tex. App.Apr 21, 2017Background
- Samantha Ann Dillard pled guilty to two counts of theft (value ≤ $1,500) with two prior theft convictions, resulting in enhanced punishment of 24 months’ confinement.
- As part of a plea agreement, Dillard withdrew a pretrial motion seeking to bar Lamar County Attorney Gary Young from prosecuting, and the parties agreed the State would not file a related third-degree felony charge.
- Dillard filed a pro se letter raising two points on appeal: (1) Young should be barred due to prior representation of Dillard about 18 years earlier; and (2) the State breached the plea agreement and she “didn’t receive what [she] signed for,” including alleged continued liability for court costs.
- Appointed appellate counsel concluded the appeal was frivolous and filed an Anders brief; the court conducted an independent review of the record.
- The trial court held a punishment hearing, ordered concurrent sentences, and there is nothing in the record showing the State failed to implement the plea agreement or filed additional charges against Dillard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecution conflict due to prior representation by county attorney | Young previously represented Dillard (1998); he should be barred from prosecuting | Dillard waived the motion at plea; even if not waived, record lacks proof Young used confidential information | Waived at trial; alternatively, no evidence of confidential-information-based conflict, so no due-process violation |
| State breached plea agreement | State did not honor agreement (Dillard got bonds, credited time, yet claims liability for court costs; believes other charges remained) | Record shows written plea admonishments reflecting agreement; sentences ran concurrently; no record of additional charges being pursued | No record evidence of breach; plea benefits were received as bargained |
| Merits of appeal / counsel withdrawal (Anders) | N/A (Dillard argued the above points pro se) | Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and requested leave to withdraw | Court independently reviewed record, found no meritorious issues, affirmed conviction, and granted counsel’s Anders request to withdraw |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures for appointed counsel to withdraw when an appeal is frivolous)
- Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605 (U.S. 2005) (court must ensure adequate review when defendant proceeds without counsel on appeal)
- Faulder v. State, 612 S.W.2d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (defendant may waive an objection or motion by withdrawing it)
- Landers v. State, 256 S.W.3d 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (prior representation of defendant by prosecutor does not alone establish a due-process conflict absent showing of confidential information used)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standard for evaluating frivolous appeals and appellate counsel’s Anders brief)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (procedural guidance related to Anders-type submissions)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (procedural guidance related to Anders-type submissions)