Court Opinion

ID: 9945651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 07:12:14.103693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:35.432987
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Opinion Filed February 20, 2024

                                      In the
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                              Nos. 05-22-01219-CR
                                05-22-01220-CR

                        HORACE SHAW, Appellant
                                  V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

               On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
            Trial Court Cause Nos. F22-00304-M and F22-00305-M

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Carlyle, Goldstein, and Breedlove
                           Opinion by Justice Carlyle
      Mr. Shaw waived his right to a jury trial and entered an open guilty plea to

two charges of manslaughter for a drunken car wreck that killed a pregnant mother

and her newborn baby boy, who was delivered by emergency caesarian section at

thirty-six weeks the night of the crash. Despite facing up to twenty years’

incarceration the way the case was charged, and up to forty had the state exercised

its prerogative, the trial court sentenced him to fourteen years. We affirm in this

memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
       Mr. Shaw’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders

brief that professionally examines the record and applicable law then concludes the

instant appeal is frivolous and without merit. See generally Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). Specifically, counsel analyzes potential issues concerning the (1)

venue, (2) applicable statute of limitations, (3) appointment of counsel, (4) charging

instruments, (5) waiver of the right to a jury, (6) sufficiency of the evidence, (7)

objections and rulings, (8) admonitions, (9) validity of the sentence, (10) effective

assistance of counsel, and (11) performed duties of appointed counsel.

       Counsel certifies that he has provided Mr. Shaw with a copy of the brief and

his motion to withdraw. On August 15, 2023, this Court advised Mr. Shaw of his

right to file a pro se response to his counsel’s Anders brief. See Kelly v. State, 436

S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (explaining right to file pro se response

to an Anders brief). The State filed a response in which it also concluded there were

no non-frivolous grounds for Mr. Shaw’s appeals.1

       Mr. Shaw filed a pro se response challenging his counsel’s Anders brief and

motion to withdraw. Although the Anders brief examines eleven different avenues

for potentially reversible error and finds none, Mr. Shaw’s response focuses on

effective assistance of trial counsel. The Anders brief filed by Mr. Shaw’s appellate

1
        Although the text of the State’s letter identifies the appellant as “Bobby Carl Jessie,” this
appears to be a typo as the remainder of the document (1) references Horace Shaw and the correct
appellate case numbers at issue, (2) contains an accurate reference to the Anders brief in this case,
and (3) contains the correct name of the trial court judge, the trial court, the sentences imposed,
and relevant facts.
                                                 –2–
counsel concludes his trial counsel was not ineffective because he actively cross-

examined the State’s witnesses and presented witnesses and argument at

punishment. The record supports this conclusion and shows his counsel also (1)

introduced testimony that Mr. Shaw lacked a criminal history; (2) introduced

testimony of Mr. Shaw’s career in Dallas as a firefighter paramedic for twelve years;

(3) introduced evidence in support of Mr. Shaw’s character, including letters from a

pastor and a retired district court judge and live testimony from his supervisor, two

additional pastors, a chaplain with the Dallas Fire Department, three co-workers,

family members, and friends; (4) clarified facts that without clarification could have

prejudiced Mr. Shaw’s interests; and (5) made two timely objections at the

punishment hearing, one of which was sustained and the other of which caused the

State to withdraw its question.

      Notably, the record shows these cases were filed by information and the state

only charged Mr. Shaw with manslaughter for which the sentences could only run

concurrently. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 3.03(a). Had the state charged Mr. Shaw with

intoxication manslaughter, also a second-degree felony, the judge could have

ordered the sentences to run consecutively, opening Mr. Shaw up to a potential forty

years in prison. See id. §§ 3.01, 3.03, 49.08. The fact that the state initiated the cases

by information the same day Mr. Shaw entered into his plea agreement provides the

basis for an inference that counsel was involved in negotiations before that time and

                                           –3–
assisted in securing the manslaughter charge and consequent lower sentencing

exposure.

        Mr. Shaw’s pro se response cites Government of the Virgin Islands v. Forte

for the proposition that his counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by

failing to preserve error and that this failure constitutes a nonfrivolous ground for

appeal. 865 F.2d 59 (3d Cir. 1989). While Mr. Shaw correctly cited a case involving

ineffective assistance of counsel based on a failure to preserve error, he does not

point us to any alleged unpreserved error in these cases where he pleaded guilty to

manslaughter. Although we liberally construe pro se pleadings and briefs, we hold

pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to

comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Chambers v. State, 261 S.W.3d

755, 757 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied). Under the circumstances, the

absence of citations to the record constitutes briefing waiver and leaves us with

nothing to review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1 (g) & (i); Hill v. State, No. 05-16-01512-

CR, 2018 WL 1516889, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 28, 2018, no pet.) (mem.

op.).

        Mr. Shaw further argues his counsel (1) filed an Anders brief that is frivolous

and “amount[s] to no counsel at all,” (2) constructively denied him the right to

appellate counsel, (3) failed to conduct a sufficient investigation “that potentially

would have produced some more favorable facts and evidence” to his appeal, (4)

was ineffective because he accepted the State’s version of facts as true without

                                          –4–
personally conducting an investigation, and (5) denied him equal protection under

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. While several of these

arguments correctly cite to cases standing for relevant propositions of law, Mr. Shaw

cites to neither the record nor to facts that would enable us to apply the facts to the

precedents he cites. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1 (g) & (i). The absence of citations to

facts or the record leaves us with nothing to review. Eldorado Homeowners’ Ass’n,

Inc. v. Clough, No. 05-22-00198-CV, 2024 WL 20170, at *14 (Tex. App.—Dallas

Jan. 2, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).2

        We have reviewed the record, the Anders brief filed by Mr. Shaw’s counsel,

Mr. Shaw’s challenges thereto, and the letter response filed by the State. See Bledsoe

v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (identifying appellate

courts’ duties in Anders cases). We conclude counsel’s amended brief meets the

requirements of Anders v. California, presents a professional evaluation of the

record, and shows why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See High

v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining

whether brief meets requirements of Anders). We agree the appeal is frivolous and

without merit, and we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the

appeal.

    2
      We note that ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal rarely find sufficient evidentiary
support in the record. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.07 provides a procedural mechanism
for claimants like Mr. Shaw to submit evidence to create a trial court record with evidence of his claims for
further review.
                                                     –5–
      We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

221219f.u05
                                         /Cory L. Carlyle//
221220f.u05
                                         CORY L. CARLYLE
Do Not Publish                           JUSTICE
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

                                       –6–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

HORACE SHAW, Appellant                        On Appeal from the 194th Judicial
                                              District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-01219-CR          V.                Trial Court Cause No. F22-00304-M.
                                              Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                  Justices Goldstein and Breedlove
                                              participating.

    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 20th day of February, 2024.

                                        –7–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

HORACE SHAW, Appellant                        On Appeal from the 194th Judicial
                                              District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-01220-CR          V.                Trial Court Cause No. F22-00305-M.
                                              Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                  Justices Goldstein and Breedlove
                                              participating.

    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 20th day of February, 2024.

                                        –8–