Tonjia Scarborough v. State
10-16-00175-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Tonjia Scarborough pleaded guilty to three indictments charging driving while intoxicated (third or more) and pleaded "true" to enhancement paragraphs; punishment was tried.
- The trial court assessed 18 years' confinement in each case and ordered the sentences to run concurrently.
- The trial court certified Scarborough's right to appeal only the punishment phase in each cause; appeals followed.
- Appellate counsel filed Anders briefs and motions to withdraw, concluding no arguable grounds for appeal after reviewing the record and notifying Scarborough of her right to file a pro se response.
- This Court conducted an independent review of the entire record and counsel's briefs and found no reversible error; the Court affirmed the trial judgments and granted counsel's motions to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Anders procedure | Scarborough (via counsel) had no arguable issues; counsel followed Anders steps | State: procedure was followed and no error shown | Court found Anders compliance sufficient; no arguable error |
| Independent appellate review requirement | Scarborough: (no pro se response filed) implicitly argues nothing meritorious | Court/State: independent review required to determine frivolousness | Court performed full review (Penson standard) and found no grounds for appeal |
| Validity of punishment assessment | Scarborough had opportunity to contest punishment at trial | State: punishment within court's discretion given plea and enhancements | Court affirmed 18-year sentences as not reversible on record review |
| Counsel's withdrawal request | Counsel: should be allowed to withdraw if appeal is frivolous and Anders criteria met | State: supports withdrawal per precedent | Court granted motions to withdraw and ordered counsel to notify appellant of PDR rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (mandates full appellate review when counsel files an Anders brief)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Texas guidance on Anders briefs and required content)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explains appellate courts' duties when handling Anders briefs)