Background
A grand jury indicted Micah Lynn Richardson for driving while intoxicated, third offense or more, a third-degree felony. The indictment also alleged a prior conviction for attempted burglary of a habitation, which increased the applicable punishment range to that of a second-degree felony.
Richardson entered an open guilty plea and pleaded true to the enhancement allegation. After a presentence investigation and punishment hearing, the trial court sentenced him to 12 years in prison. His appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding that the appeal was frivolous, and Richardson filed a pro se brief.
The Court’s Holding
After independently reviewing the record, counsel’s Anders brief, and Richardson’s pro se brief, the Ninth Court of Appeals found no reversible error and concluded that the appeal was wholly frivolous. The court therefore declined to appoint new counsel to rebrief the case.
The court nevertheless identified a nonreversible clerical error in the written judgment. Although Richardson entered an open plea with no agreed punishment recommendation, the judgment listed “12 Year(s) TDCJ, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION” as a term of a plea bargain. The court replaced that entry with “N/A” and affirmed the judgment as modified.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court reviewing an Anders brief must independently examine the record to determine whether any nonfrivolous ground for appeal exists.
- The court found no reversible error in Richardson’s conviction or 12-year sentence.
- A court of appeals may correct a nonreversible error in a criminal judgment and affirm the judgment as modified, including in an Anders proceeding.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Anders review requires the appellate court’s own examination of the record, even when counsel concludes that an appeal is frivolous and the defendant submits a pro se brief.
It also illustrates the distinction between an agreed sentence and a sentence imposed after an open plea. Correctly recording that distinction avoids inaccurately characterizing the defendant’s punishment as the product of a plea bargain.