Javier Sanchez v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00340-CR

JAVIER SANCHEZ, APPELLANT V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 320th District Court Potter County, Texas

Trial Court No. 086580-D-CR, Honorable Steven Denny, Presiding

August 27, 2026

ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before DOSS and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.

Appellant, Javier Sanchez, appeals from the judgment of conviction entered against him and in favor of Appellee, the State of Texas. His court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief filed under Anders v. California.1 Counsel states that he found no error in the guilt-innocence phase of the trial. Our independent review of the record reveals at least one arguable issue that is not wholly

1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

frivolous. We grant the motion to withdraw, abate the appeal, and remand the cause to the trial court for the appointment of new counsel.

BACKGROUND

A grand jury indicted Appellant for evading arrest or detention, enhanced by prior convictions. A jury found him guilty as charged and found both enhancement allegations true. The jury assessed punishment at five years of confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

ANALYSIS

When court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief, we must independently examine the record for any arguable ground that may be raised on the appellant’s behalf. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). That examination leads to one of two outcomes. We may conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Or we may conclude that arguable grounds exist and remand the cause so that new counsel may be appointed to brief them. Id. (citing Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510).

The record here presents an arguable issue. Before trial, Appellant moved to determine the admissibility of statements he made while, as he asserted, under arrest and without having received the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The trial court did not rule on the motion before trial. A body camera recording admitted at trial captured an interaction between Appellant and a law enforcement officer after Appellant was placed under arrest. When the State offered Appellant’s statements,

3

Appellant objected that they were the product of custodial interrogation conducted without the required warnings. The court heard the objection outside the presence of the jury, overruled it, and granted Appellant a running objection. The Anders brief makes no mention of the recorded interaction, the objection, or the ruling.

We cannot say that a challenge to the admission of the statements would be wholly frivolous, whatever its ultimate merit. See Davis v. State, 683 S.W.3d 828, 830 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2023, no pet.) (“[w]hen at least one issue is arguable, Anders is not the proper mode of continuation”) (citing Limauro v. State, 675 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2023, no pet.). We express no view on how the question should be resolved. We hold only that it deserves briefing.

CONCLUSION

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, abate the appeal, and remand the cause to the trial court. Upon remand, the trial court shall appoint new appellate counsel by written order. The order must state the name, address, email address, telephone number, and State Bar number of newly appointed counsel. The trial court shall cause the order to be filed in a supplemental clerk’s record with the Clerk of this Court no later than Wednesday, September 30, 2026.

Newly appointed counsel may request supplementation of the appellate record.

Any such request must be made by written motion filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before Wednesday, October 7, 2026. Appellant’s brief addressing the issue identified above, and any other non-frivolous issue counsel encounters, is due Friday, November 6, 2026, unless otherwise extended.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.