See A n d e r s v . C a lifo r

n ia , 38 6 U

. S

. 73 8, 74 4-4 5, 87 S

. C t

. 13 96 , 18 L. E d.2d 49 3 (19 67 ). 1 NO. 07-08 -031 5-CR

IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D MA RC H 17, 2 009

_________

_________

_________

___ AN THON YG. H ER EFO RD JR ., Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO. 200 7-41 6,8 58; HON. JIM BOB DARNEL L, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Ab at emen t fo r New Counsel

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. After a j ur

y tr ial , An thony Hereford ( appel lan t) was conv icted o f the offense of posse ssion of

a contro lled sub stan ce. Pun ishm entwas assesse d by the ju ry a t f if ty y ears in the Te x as Depa rtme nt of Criminal Justice Institut iona l Di v ision. App ellanttimely filed his noti ce of appeal

. Appel lan t’ s a ppoi nted couns el filed a motion to w it hdraw , t og ether w it h an Anders 1 br ief, w herein he c erti fies that, after dil ig entl y searchi ng the re cord, he conc lud ed that the2

appeal i s w it hout meri t. A lo ng w it h hi s b ri ef, he fil ed a copy of a l etter

se nt t o appel lan t infor ming hi m of couns el’ s b eli ef that there w as no rev ersi ble er ro r and of appel lan t’ s r ig ht to ap pea l pr

o s e. Byletter

dated Januar

y 6, 2009, thi s c our

t not ified appel lan t of hi s r ig ht to fil e hi s o wn b rief or

respon se by

F ebr uar y 5, 2009, if he w is hed t o do so. To dat e, appel lan t hasnot filed a respon se. After condu cti ng our

ow n i ndependen t rev iew of the re cord, w e abate the caus e and
re mand the proceed ing for the appoi ntment of new co unsel

. Appel lan t c ontende d at tr ial that hisF our

th A mendment protecti on ag ain st unreason abl e s earch and s eiz ure was v iol ated due t o ex ces si v e forc e us ed i n obt ain ing cont ra band from his mouth. F urther more, the t ri al courtrefused t o al low an e x per

t t o tes ti fy on th e matt er of w hen forc e bec omes excessiv e an d the reason ab le u s e o f tasers. So to o did it om it an instruct ion to the jury
re ga rd in g e xc lu s io n o f

t h e e v i d e n c e p u rp o rt e d ly g a rn e re d t h ro u gh t h e u s e o f e xc e s s ive force. Thes e matt ers i mpli cat e the U nit ed St ates and Tex as Con sti tuti ons and app ear ra ther nov el under Tex as jur is pr udenc e. W hil e w e make no comment upon t hei r ult imat e meri t, they

nonet hel ess pos e arg uabl e is sues for appel lat e re v iew

. Thus, w e do not a cc ept app ellate coun sel’s represen tatio n con cerning the m erits of the ap pea l. Accordin gly , w e ab ate the ap pea l and rem and the cau se to th e 14 0 Distri ct Court th of Lubbock

C ounty , Texas. See S taff or d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 503, 511 (Tex . C ri m. App. 199 1). Upon rema nd, the trial court sha ll app oint a n att orne y (other tha n ap pellan t’s current a ttorn ey)to represe nt ap pellan t in this app eal. I rr e spect iv e of w ho is ultim ate ly appoi nted, the attor ney mustpo ssess su ff ic ien t abi li ty and ex per ien ce to represent appel lan t i n the m atters before the c our t. See Rays on v

. St ate, 2 6 7 S

. W

. 2 d 1 5 3 , 1 5 6 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1954) ; T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 26.04( d) ( Ver non 200 9) ( re q uir ing the court to ap po i nt an atto r ne y w ho me et s ap pl i c ab l e q ua l i fi c at i on s s pe c i fi ed by th e T ask3

Force on In dig ent D efense al ong w it h tho se e st abl is hed by the jud g es of the c ounty of app ointm ent ). And, giv en th e no v elty of the poten tial issues involv ed, we respe ctf ully ask the t ri al cour

t t o c onsi der

the candi date’s e xpe rience w it h and educa ti on i n the l aw of
search and s eiz ure w hen mak ing i ts sel ect ion

. T he trial cou rt shall f urthe r order the ne w ly app ointe d coun sel to f ile an ap pellan t’s br ief, asper

the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re , dev elop in g t h e aforement ion ed
arg uabl e g ro unds, and all other g ro unds that mig ht s uppor t rev ersal or

modi ficat ion of the judgme nt. T he d ead line for f iling the a ppe llant’s brief w ith the clerk of

this app ellate court is June 1, 200 9. T here af ter, any respo ndin g brief w hich th e Sta te m ay care to su bm it shall be fil ed w it hin 30 d ays a fter t he fil ing of the a ppel lan t’ s b ri ef. Next, the t ri a l co urt s hal l caus e the name, address , and st ate b ar number of the newly app ointe d cou nsel to be includ ed in a supp lem ent al transcript. Tha t transcript sha ll be fil ed by

the tr ial co urt w it h the cl er k o f this co urt on or before Apr il 6, 2009. Fi nal ly , s ole ly

bec ause the o pin ion ex press ed by appel lan t’ s c urre n tl y a ppoi nted
a tt o rn e y c o u ld b e vi e we d a s c re a t in g a c o n f li cto f i n t e re s t , we g ra n th is m o t io n t o wit h d ra w. Howev er , no th in g h e rein shoul d be cons ide re d as a c omment on couns el’ s a bil ity and
ex per ien ce. It is so ordered. Per C ur iam

Do not p ubl is h.