Opinion
No. 07-20-00188-CR
12-21-2020
KEVIN LAWSON BLAYDES, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 100th District Court Hall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 3957, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and DOSS, JJ.
Kevin Lawson Blaydes, appellant, appeals the trial court's judgment convicting him of organized criminal activity. After accepting a guilty plea and following the plea agreement, the trial court placed appellant on seven years' deferred adjudication probation and fined him $7,000. Subsequently, the State moved the trial court to adjudicate appellant's guilt in the cause. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court found appellant guilty, adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to forty years in prison. Appellant now appeals.
Appellant's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw together with an Anders brief. Through those documents, she certifies to the Court that, after diligently searching the record, the appeal is without merit. Accompanying the brief and motion is a copy of a letter sent by counsel to appellant informing the latter of counsel's belief that there is no reversible error and of appellant's right to file a response, pro se, to counsel's Anders brief. So too did counsel provide appellant with a copy of the clerk's and reporter's records, according to the letter. By letter dated December 3, 2020, this Court notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by December 30, 2020, if he wished to do so.
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S., 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal. Those areas included 1) sufficiency of the evidence to support appellant's probation violations and 2) disproportionate sentencing. However, she then explained why the issues lacked merit. While awaiting whether appellant filed a pro se response, we began our initial analysis per In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). It revealed potentially arguable issues. One implicates the indictment, the ultimate conviction, Hughitt v. State, 583 S.W.3d 623 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019), and the validity of the purported predicate offense. See Walker v. State, 594 S.W.3d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020). The other concerns the range of punishment related to the charged offense.
Counsel having represented to this Court that no arguable issues appear of record, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. We further see no reason to await any potential pro se brief (given our finding of arguable issues) and abate and remand this cause to the trial court for appointment of new counsel to represent appellant on appeal. The trial court is directed to make the new appointment on or before January 14, 2021. A copy of the order appointing new counsel shall be included in a supplemental clerk's record and filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before January 15, 2021. Newly appointed counsel will then file an appellant's brief conforming to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and addressing the issues mentioned above and any other issues counsel deems arguable. The deadline to file said brief is February 15, 2021, unless extended by the Court.
Per Curiam Do not publish.