Caseflicks

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas • 1978

High v. State

573 S.W.2d 807 | 1978 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1393

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case requires appointed appellate counsel to provide a record-based, legally supported Anders brief—not a conclusory no-merit statement—and makes trial courts chiefly responsible for enforcing that protection for indigent appellants.

Background

High was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual abuse of a child and received a ten-year prison sentence. After he gave notice of appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals initially abated the appeal so the trial court could determine whether he was indigent. The trial court found that he was, ordered a free reporter's record, and appointed appellate counsel; that counsel had also represented High at trial.

When the appeal returned on a supplemental record, appointed counsel had filed a purportedly frivolous-appeal brief. The brief was less than one and one-half pages of substantive discussion despite a record exceeding 600 pages. It broadly asserted that the case involved witness credibility, that there were no meaningful objections or possible errors, and that two prosecutorial comments did not amount to reversible error. The Court again abated the appeal because the brief did not satisfy the constitutional and state-law standards governing an indigent appellant's representation on appeal.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether appointed counsel's frivolous-appeal brief provided High the effective appellate advocacy required by Anders v. California and Currie v. State.

Holding

No. The brief was constitutionally and procedurally inadequate, so the appeal had to be abated and remanded for High to receive effective assistance of counsel on appeal.

Reasoning

Under Anders, appointed counsel who concludes after a conscientious review that an appeal is wholly frivolous may seek leave to withdraw, but must first file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel must act as an advocate rather than merely advise the court that the appeal lacks merit. The brief must give the court useful references to both the record and relevant legal authorities, while the court—not counsel—ultimately determines whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.

Currie recognizes that counsel may sometimes be unable, in good faith, to advance an arguable appellate ground. Even then, counsel must provide a professional evaluation of the record showing why no arguable grounds exist. That evaluation protects the indigent appellant's right to advocacy and enables judicial review of a lengthy, cold record.

Counsel's brief failed both standards. It did not describe the trial evidence, analyze the sufficiency of the evidence, identify potentially arguable matters in the record, cite record pages, or cite any legal authority. It also inaccurately asserted that defense counsel made no trial objection, although the record showed at least one. Nor did it address the State's objections that the trial court sustained.

In a contested jury case, a court-appointed lawyer's frivolous-appeal brief must discuss the evidence, identify where pertinent testimony appears in the record, and address objections by stating their nature, the trial court's rulings, and why those rulings were correct or harmless. A conclusory assertion that no reversible error appears does not meet those requirements.

Issue #2

Whether Texas trial courts have an affirmative responsibility to ensure that frivolous-appeal briefs for indigent appellants comply with Anders and Currie before the record is sent to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Holding

Yes. The trial court has the primary duty under Article 40.09(12) to review such briefs and ensure that indigent appellants receive effective appellate assistance.

Reasoning

Article 40.09(12) requires the trial court, after appellate briefing, to decide whether a new trial should be granted. This procedure gives the trial judge an opportunity to review the case as it will reach the appellate court and to correct apparent reversible error without the delay and expense of a further appeal.

That duty is especially important when appointed counsel files a frivolous-appeal brief. The trial judge should determine whether the brief meets Anders and Currie, because a defective brief prevents meaningful review and deprives the indigent appellant of effective assistance. If the trial court does not act, the Court of Criminal Appeals may have to abate the appeal months later, causing avoidable delay and wasting judicial resources.

If a brief reveals a legal point that is arguable on its merits, the trial court must ensure that the indigent appellant has counsel to argue that point. If the judge declines to grant a new trial, appointed counsel should not be permitted to withdraw unless replacement counsel is appointed, because the appellant remains entitled to effective representation before the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The court reaffirmed that trial judges can enforce counsel's obligations. They may order appointed counsel to file a proper brief, require counsel to show cause for noncompliance, use contempt authority, report counsel for disciplinary action, replace counsel, or withhold future indigent-defense appointments from attorneys who fail to perform their duties.