James Bradley Warden v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided September 29, 2015·No. 03-15-00299-CR·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED

03-15-00299-CR

7087609

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

September 29, 2015 9/24/2015 3:35:40 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

No. 03-15-00298-CR & 03-15-00299-CR

JAMES BRADLEY WARDEN ) IN THE COURTRECEIVED OF APPEALS

IN

3rd COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

V. ) FOR THE 9/24/2015 THIRD SUPREME

3:35:40 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

Clerk

STATE OF TEXAS ) JUDICIAL DISTRICT 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 James

Bradley Warden, 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 June 29, 2015, the undersigned counsel, movant,

was appointed by the 33rd District Court of Burnet County to represent Appellant on

appeal.

2. Counsel Appointed on Appeal 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

Page 1

is under an ethical 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 (2015) (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:

James Bradley Warden, TDCJ No. 01994759, Bradshaw Unit Unit, P.O. Box 9000,

Henderson, TX 75653-9000.

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 24, 2015, this document was

sent by electronic service to the Burnet County D.A.’s Office, 1701 E. Polk Ste 24,

Burnet, TX 78611 and, by certified mail, to James Bradley Warden, TDCJ No.

01994759, Bradshaw Unit, P.O. Box 9000, Henderson, TX 75653-9000.

Page 5

KENNETH G. MAHAFFEY

Attorney At Law

P. O. Box 684585 Austin, TX 78768 (512) 444-6557

September 24, 2015

James Bradley Warden CERTIFIED MAIL 7008 1300 0001 1357 6374 01994759 Bradshaw Unit P.O. Box 9000 Henderson, TX 75653-9000

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

Dear Mr. Warden:

I have fully reviewed the records of your recent conviction for Evading Arrest and Possession of Methamphetamine less than one gram. 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. Unless the trial judge makes a ruling, the judge has not made any decision that could be erroneous. If there was no objection, the appellate court will typically not review the trial judge's action even to see if there was an error. The reviewing court will simply hold any complaint was “waived”.

EXHIBIT “A”

Letter to James Bradley Warden September 24, 2015 Page -- 2

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

James Bradley Warden v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

James Bradley Warden v. State (James Bradley Warden v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)