Torry Jamal Reed v. State, 06-17-00104-CR

Reed was tried for murder; after the State presented its case the defendant changed his plea from not guilty to guilty with the jury to assess punishment.
The jury sentenced Reed to 75 years confinement and a $10,000 fine; the State dismissed an aggravated-robbery count in exchange for the guilty plea to murder.
The State presented multiple eyewitnesses, fingerprint and firearms evidence (shell casings of .380 and 9mm, a recovered AMT .380 pistol, and a recovered Hi‑Point 9mm), and testimony tying a light‑colored Lincoln and several individuals to the scene.
The plea change occurred after plea negotiations that included a rejected and later withdrawn offer; the trial court placed on the record colloquy/admonishments concerning the plea.
Appellate counsel (Gerald J. Smith, Sr.) filed an Anders brief stating he thoroughly reviewed the record, found no nonfrivolous, record‑based issues: specifically, he concluded Reed’s guilty plea and sentencing were within statutory parameters and any argument about the voluntariness or admonishments would be frivolous.

Issue	Reed's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Reed voluntarily changed his plea from not guilty to guilty	Reed (through counsel’s framing) could challenge voluntariness/admonishments	The record shows Reed knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty after on‑the‑record admonishments and advice of counsel	Appellate counsel concluded the record shows no harm or reversible error and that any appeal on voluntariness would be frivolous
Whether plea‑stage admonishments or waivers were deficient such that reversal is required	Potential claim that admonishments/waivers were incomplete or not properly documented	Trial court conducted on‑the‑record colloquy; sentencing was within statutory range; no record harm shown	Counsel concluded there is no record‑based showing of harm under Article 26.13, so challenge would be meritless
Whether sentence complied with statutory and constitutional mandates	Reed may argue excessive or procedurally defective sentencing	Sentence (75 years, $10,000) falls within statutory range for murder and credits were given as applicable	Counsel found no meritorious record‑based challenge to the punishment or sentencing procedure
Whether preserved (or fundamental) errors exist to support an appeal	Reed could pursue preserved or fundamental error claims	Record review revealed no preserved or fundamental errors supporting reversal	Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, concluding no nonfrivolous issues exist

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures governing counsel’s withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (standards for appellate counsel’s duties in identifying nonfrivolous issues)
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (appellate counsel’s obligations when filing an Anders brief)