Alanda Suzanne Fewins v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Alanda Suzanne Fewins v. State

166 S.W.3d 751, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 3238, 2005 WL 927282

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 20, 2005

Docket10-04-00189-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 166 S.W.3d 751 (Alanda Suzanne Fewins v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alanda Suzanne Fewins v. State, 166 S.W.3d 751, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 3238, 2005 WL 927282 (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinions

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,

concurring in opinion to order striking brief.

This case again demonstrates the need to revisit the procedure we use in Anders cases. For an example of an Anders brief which substantially complies with the requirements of Sowels, counsel should look to the attachment to the concurring opinion in Perryman. Perryman v. State, 159 S.W.3d 778, 2005 Tex.App. LEXIS 2106 (Tex.App.-Waco Mar. 16, 2005, order) (Gray, C.J., concurring). The attachment is a redacted version of a brief previously found to be in compliance with this Court’s burdensome requirements in an Anders appeal.

Of course, this is only an example and any Anders brief must be tailored to the facts and circumstances of the individual case. It cannot simply be copied, edited, and filed. But it certainly can provide a rule and guide to the lawyer looking for direction from someone familiar with the procedure in this Court for Anders briefs. As the Court has imposed the burden of Sowels and its progeny, I feel that it is also the Court’s burden to provide some, guidance on how to comply with it.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,

concurring in opinion to order striking brief.

This case again demonstrates the need to revisit the procedure we use in Anders cases. For an example of an Anders brief which substantially complies with the requirements of Sowels, counsel should look to the attachment to the concurring opinion in Perryman. Perryman v. State, 159 S.W.3d 778, 2005 Tex.App. LEXIS 2106 (Tex.App.-Waco Mar. 16, 2005, order) (Gray, C.J., concurring). The attachment is a redacted version of a brief previously found to be in compliance with this Court’s burdensome requirements in an Anders appeal.

Of course, this is only an example and any Anders brief must be tailored to the facts and circumstances of the individual case. It cannot simply be copied, edited, and filed. But it certainly can provide a rule and guide to the lawyer looking for direction from someone familiar with the procedure in this Court for Anders briefs. As the Court has imposed the burden of Sowels and its progeny, I feel that it is also the Court’s burden to provide some, guidance on how to comply with it.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.W.3d 751, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 3238, 2005 WL 927282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alanda-suzanne-fewins-v-state-texapp-2005.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack