Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Samuel Mark McCann was charged in separate indictments with online solicitation of a minor, indecency with a child by exposure, and two offenses of indecency with a child by contact. In a consolidated proceeding, he entered an open guilty plea to online solicitation and no-contest pleas to the three indecency charges.
After a punishment hearing, the trial court imposed concurrent prison terms of ten years for online solicitation, fourteen years for one contact offense, and ten years for the exposure offense. On the remaining contact offense, the court deferred a finding of guilt and placed McCann on deferred-adjudication community supervision for ten years. His appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, concluding that the record presented no arguable appellate issue. McCann did not file a pro se response.
The Court’s Holding
After independently reviewing the record under Anders, the Eleventh Court of Appeals agreed that the appeal lacked any meritorious arguable ground. The court noted that McCann received written and oral plea admonishments, swore that his pleas were free and voluntary, and waived preliminary motions.
The trial court did not admonish McCann about sex-offender registration as required by Article 26.13, but the appellate court held that the omission was harmless because the record as a whole showed that it did not affect a substantial right relating to his decision to plead. The court also found no plea-withdrawal issue: although McCann briefly asked about withdrawing his no-contest pleas before sentencing, he ultimately stated that he wanted to proceed without changing them. The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the trial court’s judgments.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court reviewing an Anders brief must independently examine the record for any meritorious arguable ground for appeal.
- Failure to give the statutory sex-offender-registration admonishment is subject to harmless-error review and does not automatically invalidate a plea.
- McCann’s brief inquiry about withdrawing his no-contest pleas did not preserve an appellate issue because he ultimately chose to proceed without changing them.
Why It Matters
The memorandum opinion illustrates how Texas appellate courts evaluate plea proceedings in Anders cases, including whether omitted statutory admonishments affected the defendant’s substantial rights. It also underscores that a defendant’s discussion of possible plea withdrawal does not establish error when the defendant ultimately elects to maintain the pleas.