Young, Mark Anthony, PD-1103-15

Background

Mark Anthony Young was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 50 years imprisonment; the Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed in an Anders opinion.
The only eyewitness was store clerk Carolina Ali, who did not identify the robber at the scene but identified Young days later from a photo lineup and at trial.
The State admitted a store surveillance video (State's Exhibit 1) but played only part of it at trial; Young contends the unplayed portion shows a different person committing the robbery.
Young filed a pro se response raising ineffective assistance of counsel (trial counsel failed to investigate/video), prosecutorial misconduct/Brady (State withheld exculpatory portion of the video), actual innocence (Herrera/Schlup type claim), and legal-sufficiency challenges.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw; the court independently reviewed the record, deemed the appeal wholly frivolous, affirmed, and granted counsel's withdrawal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of counsel (trial counsel failed to investigate video)	Young: trial counsel did not investigate or object to the prosecution stopping the surveillance video before the robber’s face appears, depriving Young of evidence and constituting ineffective assistance.	State/Court: no reversible error shown on the record; appellate Anders review found no arguable issue to remand.	Court of Appeals held the appeal frivolous and did not find an arguable ineffective-assistance claim on direct review.
Prosecutorial misconduct / Brady (withholding exculpatory video)	Young: the State had and viewed the full video that would have exculpated him but failed to show or highlight it to defense or court; nondisclosure violated Brady.	State: the record does not support a Brady violation sufficient to reverse; the court did not find material, undisclosed evidence warranting relief.	Court of Appeals found no arguable Brady claim and affirmed.
Actual innocence / Herrera claim	Young: the unshown portion of the video conclusively proves someone else committed the robbery, amounting to actual innocence entitling relief.	State/Court: the record and existing proceedings do not present the extraordinary showing required for post-conviction Herrera relief on direct review.	Court of Appeals concluded no arguable actual-innocence claim in this Anders appeal and affirmed.
Adequacy of Anders brief / legal sufficiency	Young: appellate counsel’s Anders brief was inadequate because meritorious issues (video, counsel effectiveness, Brady, insufficiency) exist and should have been developed; the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence.	Appellate counsel: complied with Anders by evaluating the record and concluding no non-frivolous issues; court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable grounds.	Court of Appeals: Anders brief sufficient, independent review performed, appeal wholly frivolous, judgment affirmed and counsel allowed to withdraw.

Key Cases Cited

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures when counsel finds appeal frivolous)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (legal-sufficiency standard for conviction)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (standard for actual-innocence gateway claims)
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (actual-innocence claim and due-process considerations)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (Brady principles extended to undisclosed evidence absent specific request)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality test and impeachment/exculpatory evidence)
Ex parte Tully, 109 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Texas discussion of actual-innocence/Herrera claims)
Tomas v. State, 841 S.W.2d 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (Brady/impeachment evidence discussion)