David Wayne Stokes, Jr. v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 16, 2015
Docket03-15-00479-CR
StatusPublished

This text of David Wayne Stokes, Jr. v. State (David Wayne Stokes, Jr. 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
David Wayne Stokes, Jr. v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

ACCEPTED 03-15-00478-CR 6943678 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/16/2015 8:59:08 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK No. 03-15-00478-CR & 03-15-00479-CR

DAVID WAYNE STOKES ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS V. ) FOR THE 9/16/2015 THIRD SUPREME 8:59:08 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE STATE OF TEXAS ) JUDICIAL DISTRICTClerk OF TEXAS

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL ON APPEAL UNDER ANDERS v. CALIFORNIA

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Ken Mahaffey, appointed as appellate counsel for David

Wayne Stokes, the Appellant, in the above-entitled and numbered cause and files this

motion to withdraw because the record reveals no meritorious issue to argue for

reversal. In support thereof counsel would show the following:

1. Counsel Appointed. On July 24, 2015, the undersigned counsel, movant,

was appointed by the 264th District Court of Bell County to represent Appellant on

appeal.

2. Appointed Counsel must Withdraw If Record Does Not Show Reversible

Error. When the trial record does not support any legal argument that could persuade

a reviewing court to reverse, appellate counsel must inform the appellate court and the

appellant. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967)

(advancing frivolous arguments on appeal prohibited). Counsel is under an ethical

Page 1 obligation to withdraw because it is improper to make arguments for reversal that are

not grounded in the record and supported by the law. Id.; Nguyen v. State, 11 S.W.3d

376, 378 (Tex. App. -- Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.); R. 3.01, Tex. Disciplinary

R. Prof. Conduct. (1989) (counsel has duty to disclose contrary authority to the court).

3. Counsel Has Reviewed the Record and Law. The movant has thoroughly

reviewed the clerk’s and reporter’s records in this cause and the law in relation to

possible meritorious arguments for reversal.

4. No Reversible Error Found. Counsel has determined there are no issues

that could persuade an appellate court to reverse the judgment of conviction from the

current record. Any other grounds would require supplementation of the record by

new hearings to document those claims. As appellate courts may not accept new

evidence on direct appeal, the only proper procedure to develop a sufficient record is

by an application for post conviction writ of habeas corpus. See Aldrich v. State, 104

S.W.3d 890, 896 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)(where a matter is not shown in the record

from direct appeal, proper procedure to secure documentation is habeas corpus);

Oldham v. State, 977 S.W.2d 354, 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (appellate rules do not

permit abatement for a hearing on new evidence when the claim can be raised by

habeas corpus).

Page 2 5. Appointed Counsel Must File Brief Before Withdrawal. When counsel

is appointed, the lawyer must file a brief with the appellate court detailing the record

and discussing any cognizable legal issues. The brief must also provide authority to

show why each issue would not result in reversal and would be considered frivolous

by the reviewing court. Nguyen v. State, 11 S.W.3d 376, 378 (Tex. App. -- Houston

[14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

6. Anders Brief Filed This Date. Counsel, as movant, has prepared and filed a

"Anders" brief with this Court on this date, discussing the record and detailing why each

identifiable issue would not support a bone fide argument that could persuade an

appellate court to reverse.

7. Counsel Has Informed Appellant of the Right to Continue the Appeal.

Along with the Anders brief, Counsel is required to notify Appellant of his right to

continue the appeal by filing a pro-se brief and to provide information on how to obtain

the appellate record. Nguyen, supra, at 379. A copy of this Motion to Withdraw and the

Anders brief in support of the motion have been served on Appellant by certified mail.

8. Proof of Service. A copy of a letter sent by certified mail explaining

Appellant’s right continue the appeal, detailing the procedural steps for filing a pro

se brief, and instructions on how to obtain the appellate record is attached to this

motion as Exhibit “A”.

Page 3 9. Appellant’s Mailing Address. Appellant’s mailing address is as follows:

David Wayne Stokes, TDCJ No. 02013175, Gurney Unit, 1385 FM 3328, Tennessee

Colony, TX 75803.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PREMISES, CONSIDERED, the undersigned counsel

respectfully request that he be permitted to withdraw from representation in this

appeal and that the Court independently review the record to determine if indeed there

is no arguable point on appeal and if an issue is found appoint new counsel for

Appellant.

Respectfully Submitted,

Ken Mahaffey Counsel for Appellant P.O. Box 684585 Austin, Texas 78768 Phone & Fax (512) 444-6557 St. Bar. No. 12830050 Ken Mahaffey@yahoo.com

Page 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The above signature certifies that on September 16, 2015, this document was

sent by electronic filing to the Bell County D.A.’s Office, P.O. Box 540, Belton,

Texas 76513 and, by certified mail, to David Wayne Stokes, TDCJ No. 02013175,

Gurney Unit, 1385 FM 3328, Tennessee Colony, TX 75803.

Page 5 KENNETH G. MAHAFFEY Attorney At Law P. O. Box 684585 Austin, TX 78768 (512) 444-6557

September 16, 2015

David Wayne Stokes CERTIFIED MAIL 70008 1300 0001 1357 6381 02013175 Gurney Unit 1385 FM 3328 Tennessee Colony, TX 75803

RE: Determination of No Grounds for Successful Appeal, Transmittal of Motion to Withdraw and Brief Examining Each Possible Ground for Reversal

Dear Mr. Stokes:

I have fully reviewed the records of your recent conviction for Burglary of a Building and Burglary of a Vehicle. I was unable to find any issue that would result in reversal of your conviction. I regret that I am unable to help you. I assure you I diligently searched the record and reviewed the applicable law. A copy of an "Anders" brief detailing this review is enclosed.

Initially, you should understand some fundamental aspects of appellate review. The appellate court can either reverse or affirm the decision of the court below. "Reverse" means that the appellate court orders a new trial. "Affirm" means the trial court’s decision stands and the defendant will have to serve the sentenced ordered in the judgment of conviction.

The Court of Appeals may only reverse a lower court for an error of law shown in the record. An "error of law" is a mistake by the trial judge in how the case was tried. The error must be serious enough that it denied the defendant a fair trial. The fact that the defendant disagrees with the outcome is not a recognizable ground for appeal. Trial courts may only be reversed based on a clear mis-application of the law by the trial judge.

This error must also be shown in the trial record. The "record" consists of all documents filed with the court clerk and the transcript of testimony given by the witnesses. Appellate courts do not hear new testimony or accept new evidence. The decision on appeal is made solely by examining the record from the proceedings below.

It is also required that each error be called to the attention of the trial judge by a proper and timely objection. The objection must require the trial judge to make a ruling on the issue.

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Aldrich v. State
104 S.W.3d 890 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Oldham v. State
977 S.W.2d 354 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Nguyen v. State
11 S.W.3d 376 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
David Wayne Stokes, Jr. v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-wayne-stokes-jr-v-state-texapp-2015.