Trumaine Marke Williams v. State
14-15-00262-CR
| Tex. | Dec 15, 2015Background
- Williams was convicted of aggravated robbery in Brazoria County; appeal taken to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals.
- Appointed counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous and provided the required professional evaluation of the record.
- Williams was provided a copy of counsel’s brief and the opportunity to file a pro se response; none was filed within 60+ days.
- The trial court’s judgment assessed $7,604.48 in attorneys’ fees against Williams despite an affidavit of indigence and no trial-court finding that his financial circumstances changed.
- The appellate court found insufficient factual findings to rebut Williams’s presumed indigence and reformed the judgment to delete the attorneys’ fees assessment.
- After reforming the judgment, the court reviewed the record and Anders brief and affirmed the conviction, finding the appeal wholly frivolous and without reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly assessed attorneys’ fees against an indigent defendant | Williams: presumed indigent; no factual finding of changed finances so fees improper | State: trial court may assess fees if defendant has resources to offset costs (art. 26.05(g)) | Court: Fees improper—no factual determination of changed finances; judgment reformed to delete fees |
| Whether the Anders procedure was properly followed and the appeal warrants review | Williams (via counsel’s Anders brief): counsel found no nonfrivolous issues | State: appellee did not assert arguable grounds | Court: Anders brief met requirements; no pro se response filed; appeal frivolous; conviction affirmed as reformed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure when appointed counsel deems appeal frivolous)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (Anders brief standards in Texas)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (notification and opportunity to file pro se response)
- Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (article 26.05(g) requires present factual determination of defendant’s financial resources)
- Getts v. State, 155 S.W.3d 153 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (affirming appellate reformation in Anders appeal)
- Ferguson v. State, 435 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. App.—Waco 2014) (reforming judgment in Anders appeal)
- Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005) (reforming judgment in Anders appeal)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (courts need not address merits of each claim when no arguable grounds exist)