Opinion

Charles Lynch v. State

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Filed
Oct 23, 2018
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 5.6%

The opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Charles Lynch v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-17-00668-CR

Trial court case number: 15-CR-3172

Trial court: 405th District Court of Galveston County

Charles Lynch appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent

to deliver, 4-200 grams. Lynch’s attorney has filed a brief in which he concludes that after a review

of the record and pertinent law, the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Lynch filed a pro se response.

Under Anders, if an appointed attorney concludes after reviewing the record and

applicable law that the appeal is without merit, he must advise the court, file a motion to

withdraw, and file a brief discussing any issue that might arguably support the appeal. See

id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

The appellate court must then perform an independent examination of the record and the

law to determine whether appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at

1400. If the appellate court determines that there are arguable issues, it must abate the

appeal and remand with orders for the trial court to appoint new counsel. See Stafford v.

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The question before us is not who will

ultimately prevail but instead whether any non-frivolous issue exists.

After examining the record and applicable law, the court has determined that a

nonfrivolous issue may exist. For instance, on appeal, the defendant could potentially bring

a nonfivolous challenge concerning the extraneous offense evidence admitted in this case,

as well as on restitution. Accordingly, the court strikes appellant’s brief, grants the motion

to withdraw, abates the appeal, and remands the case to the trial court for a hearing to take

place for appointment of new counsel within 30 days of this order. A supplemental clerk’s

record and reporter’s record of the hearing shall be filed within 45 days if this order. The

appellant’s brief will be due within 30 days after new counsel is appointed.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jennifer Caughey

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Caughey.

Date: October 23, 2018

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.