Shannon Earl Kendricks v. State
06-18-00150-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 20, 2019Background
- Shannon Earl Kendricks was convicted by a Lamar County jury of possession with intent to deliver 4+ grams but <400 grams of a penalty group 2/2-A controlled substance (first-degree felony).
- The jury assessed punishment and the trial court sentenced Kendricks to 50 years’ imprisonment.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief advising there were no arguable issues and moved to withdraw. The brief summarized procedural history and trial evidence and evaluated why no appealable issue existed.
- The clerk mailed Kendricks the Anders brief, record, and motion to withdraw, advised him of his right to file a pro se response, and set deadlines; Kendricks filed no pro se response and requested no extension.
- The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the entire record, concluded the appeal was frivolous under Anders, affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and granted counsel permission to withdraw. The court did not appoint substitute counsel and explained procedures for seeking further review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel's Anders brief and motion to withdraw were adequate and whether the appeal presents any arguable issues | Kendricks did not file arguments; no pro se complaints were raised | Appellate counsel: no arguable issues; State: affirm conviction | Court independently reviewed the record, found the appeal frivolous, and held counsel's Anders brief adequate; affirmed judgment |
| Whether counsel should be permitted to withdraw and whether substitute counsel must be appointed | Kendricks did not oppose withdrawal or request counsel | State: grant withdrawal and affirm without appointing new counsel | Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw in accordance with Anders and did not appoint substitute counsel; informed Kendricks of PDR options |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes procedure when counsel believes appeal is frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (explains Anders procedure in Texas and appellate counsel’s obligations)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (procedural guidance on Anders-type appellate representation)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (discusses counsel’s duty to identify arguable issues)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (court’s independent review requirement when counsel files an Anders brief)