Walker v. State

• Decision Date: 29 June 1983
• Docket Number: Nos. 3-82-462-C,3-83-040-CR,s. 3-82-462-C
• Citation: 654 S.W.2d 61
• Parties: Emmitt WALKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 61

654 S.W.2d 61

Emmitt WALKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 3-82-462-CR, 3-83-040-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas,

Austin.

June 29, 1983.

David Spencer, Austin (appointed), for appellant.

Ronald Earle, Dist. Atty., Austin, for appellee.

Before SHANNON, EARL W. SMITH and BRADY, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

These are separate appeals from two judgments of conviction for aggravated robbery. Tex.Pen.Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2) (1974). Punishment was assessed by a jury in each cause at confinement for eighteen years and twenty years, respectively. In the latter cause, the trial court cumulated the sentences under the provisions of Tex.Code Cr.P.Ann. art. 42.08 (1979).

In our cause no. 3-82-462-CR, despite four extensions of time to file his brief, appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief containing five grounds of error, unaccompanied by any argument or authorities. In our cause no. 3-83-040-CR, after two extensions of time, the same counsel has filed a brief containing four grounds of error, equally destitute of supporting argument or authorities.

If a ground of error is not briefed, with a discussion or argument relating to the contention, supported by citation of applicable authorities, the appellate court is authorized to regard the ground of error as presenting nothing for review. See McWherter v. State, 607 S.W.2d 531, 537 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Roberson v. State, 513 S.W.2d 572, 577 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Houston v. State, 506 S.W.2d 907, 908 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Henriksen v. State, 500 S.W.2d 491, 496 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Schoier v. State, 480 S.W.2d 657, 659 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). In our view, if appointed counsel files a substantive, non-frivolous brief which fails to preserve any complaints for review, this is tantamount to a failure to file any brief at all, contrary to the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We would also conclude that in this context, appellant would not be afforded adequate assistance of counsel on appeal.

Even if this were not the case, however, a skeletal brief is an impermissible burden to the appellate process: since the State must speculate upon appellant's position, the preparation and quality of its brief are impaired; and, unless corrected, the cause is therefore poorly presented to the appellate court for its disposition. We further observe that a skeletal brief is not a substitute for a motion for extension of time to file the brief, even if...