Shomari Quentin Shaw v. State
06-17-00016-CR
Tex. App.Nov 7, 2017Background
- Appellant Shomari Quentin Shaw pled guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and elected jury punishment in Coryell County.
- Shaw pleaded true to two prior felony convictions; after a punishment hearing, the jury assessed 65 years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.
- Shaw’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the record presented no nonfrivolous issues and moved to withdraw.
- Counsel provided Shaw the record and notice of his right to file a pro se response; Shaw submitted a pro se response raising multiple complaints (plea admonishments, incompetence, prosecutorial misconduct, indictment and evidence issues, and ineffective assistance of counsel).
- This Court conducted an independent review of the entire record and Shaw’s pro se response, concluded the appeal was frivolous, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment, granting counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plea admonishments compliance | Shaw: trial court failed to admonish him per state/federal requirements | State: record shows no reversible admonishment defect; plea valid | Court: claim without merit; affirmed plea |
| Competency at plea | Shaw: he was mentally incompetent when pleading guilty | State: competency not shown in record; no reversible error | Court: insufficient to establish incompetence; claim fails |
| Prosecutorial misconduct re appeal | Shaw: prosecutor engaged in misconduct related to his appeal | State: no record evidence of prosecutorial misconduct affecting plea/appeal | Court: allegation unsupported; without merit |
| Indictment/evidence/ineffective counsel | Shaw: unspecified defects in indictment, evidence admission, and counsel’s effectiveness | State: record does not support reversible error or ineffective assistance claims | Court: issues meritless; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on ground appeal is frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standards for Anders-type briefs in Texas)
- Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605 (2005) (right to counsel in first-tier appellate review contexts)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (Anders review and appellate court duty to independently review record)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (precedent on counsel withdrawal and frivolous appeal procedure)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (additional guidance on counsel withdrawal in criminal appeals)