# Kelly, Sylvester

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 25, 2014 · 436 S.W.3d 313

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812371

## Case

- **Full name:** Sylvester KELLY, Appellant v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 25, 2014
- **Citations:** 436 S.W.3d 313; 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 911; 2014 WL 2865901
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Keller
- **Judges:** Price, Meyers, Womack, Johnson, Keasler, Heryey, Cochran, Keller, Alcala
- **Cited by:** 3,383 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812371

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that appointed counsel must provide his client with copies of motion to withdraw and Anders brief, inform her of the right to file a pro se response and to review the appellate record, 2 take concrete measures to facilitate her access to the appellate record, and infor…
- holding that appellate counsel who files Anders brief 2 must “take concrete measures to initiate and facilitate the process of actuating his client’s right to review the appellate record, if that is what the client wishes”
- holding that appellate counsel who files Anders brief must “take concrete measures to initiate and facilitate the process of actuating his client’s right to review the appellate record, if that is what his client wishes”

## Opinion text

KELLER, P.J.,
filed a concurring opinion.
The principle of subsidiarity is the concept that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks that cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. It is the idea that problems are best solved where they occur in an organization. I believe that the courts of appeals understand better than we do what is necessary to ensure that appellants are able to review the appellate record. Despite the mistake in this case, it appears that each court has a process that effectively addresses the matter. Because I think that this Court imposes an unnecessary burden upon the courts of appeals, I join its judgment but not its opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812371. Public record. Not legal advice.