Charleston Roshun Cobbin v. State

Opinion

Brief Stricken and Order filed January 21, 2021

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-18-00749-CR ____________

CHARLESTON ROSHUN COBBIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1506318

ORDER

This is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt. Appellant’s first appointed lawyer filed a brief challenging the underlying guilty plea but not challenging the adjudication. We abated the appeal for appellant to decide whether he wished to continue with the appeal and, if so, for his attorney to file a brief that raises an issue regarding the adjudication or complies with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The lawyer filed an amended brief that again failed to challenge the adjudication. We abated the appeal again for appointment of new counsel with the same directions: file a brief that raises an issue regarding the adjudication or that complies with Anders.

The new appointed counsel, Douglas M. Durham, filed an Anders brief, but it does not discuss the adjudication or explain why any issue regarding the adjudication would be frivolous. Further, page 16 of the Anders brief states facts that do not pertain to this case and appear to concern another defendant (e.g. that defendant’s status as the “trigger man” and his transfer from juvenile court to district court). Therefore, the brief does not comply with Anders or Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974), as interpreted in High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

To provide appellant with the effective assistance of counsel on appeal, we STRIKE the Anders brief filed in this case. Appellant’s counsel, Douglas M. Durham, is directed to file a brief in compliance with the appellate rules and the Anders procedure in this court by February 22, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Zimmerer.