A Texas court recently upheld the conviction of Andrea Michelle Collard for criminal trespass. The Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District, affirmed the jury's decision and made minor adjustments to the judgment. This ruling is significant as it underscores the legal processes involved in misdemeanor cases and the standards for appeals.
In July 2026, Collard was convicted of a Class B misdemeanor for criminal trespass under Texas law. The trial court sentenced her to ninety days of confinement but suspended the sentence, placing her on eighteen months of community supervision instead. This means that while she was found guilty, she will not serve jail time if she complies with the terms of her supervision.
The case reached the Texas Court of Appeals after Collard's court-appointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw from the case. This motion included a brief stating that there were no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal. The attorney's actions were based on the Anders v. California precedent, which allows attorneys to withdraw when they believe an appeal lacks merit. The attorney provided Collard with the necessary information to respond to the court if she wished to challenge the decision.
Collard's attorney, Kevin C. Smith, along with another attorney, Obinna Okeke, both signed the brief. However, only Smith was appointed by the trial court. The court filing indicated that Collard did not respond to the brief or request a copy of the appellate record. The State of Texas also agreed with Collard's attorney that there were no reversible issues to consider.
The court examined the record independently to ensure that there were no grounds for reversal. Justice Dana Womack, writing for the court, noted, "After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief, we have determined that—but for one minor, non-reversible error in the judgment—the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit." This statement highlights the court's thorough review process and its commitment to ensuring that all potential issues are considered.
In its ruling, the court identified a minor error in the judgment related to a $7 reimbursement fee that was assessed without a statutory basis. The court stated, "We delete from the judgment $7 of 'Reimbursement Fees' assessed without reference to a statutory basis." This correction is important as it emphasizes that only fees explicitly authorized by law can be imposed on defendants.
Aside from this minor adjustment, the court found no other issues that could support an appeal. The court granted the attorney's motion to withdraw and affirmed the trial court's judgment as modified. This outcome reinforces the idea that while defendants have the right to appeal, the grounds for such appeals must be substantial and well-founded.
The ruling has implications for Collard and others in similar situations. It illustrates the legal standards applied in misdemeanor cases and the process by which appeals are evaluated. This case serves as a reminder that defendants must be aware of the legal requirements and potential costs associated with their convictions.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Collard will pursue further legal action. The court's ruling can be appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, but it is uncertain if she will take that step. There are no related cases pending that could impact this ruling, and the court's decision stands as a significant example of how the legal system addresses misdemeanor convictions.