Stephone Keith Braziel v. State
07-12-00294-CR
Tex. App.Nov 14, 2012Background
- Braziel was convicted in the 27th District Court of Bell County for burglary of a building and sentenced to nine years in the Institutional Division.
- Braziel pled true to the enhancement paragraphs accompanying the burglary conviction.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, certifying no reversible error after diligent review.
- Counsel complied with High v. State by candidly discussing why there is no error and provided Braziel a copy of the Anders brief and the right to file a pro se response.
- The trial court advised Braziel of his right to file a pro se response, but Braziel did not file one.
- The Court independently reviewed the record and agreed there are no arguable grounds for reversal, concluding the appeal is frivolous and affirming the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there are any reversible errors despite an Anders brief | Braziel contends potential error exists | State argues no reversible error | No reversible error; frivolous appeal |
| Whether Anders procedures and compliance with High/Stafford were proper | Counsel complied with required procedures and informed Braziel | State maintains proper compliance and advisement occurred | Compliance established; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural framework for Anders briefs in criminal appeals)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978) (requires advisement and examination of grounds for appeal)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (ensures appellant is advised of rights in Anders context)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (independent review standard for frivolous-appeal claims)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (independent review of record for arguable grounds)