The Texas Court of Appeals recently ruled on the case of Andrea Michelle Collard, who was found guilty of resisting arrest. The court's decision, issued on July 9, 2026, affects Collard and clarifies aspects of her sentencing. This ruling is significant as it addresses procedural issues in misdemeanor cases.
Collard faced a Class A misdemeanor charge for resisting arrest, search, or transportation under Texas Penal Code § 38.03(a). A jury convicted her, and the trial court imposed a sentence of ninety days in jail, which was suspended. Instead, Collard was placed on fifteen months of community supervision. The case number for this appeal is 02-26-00015-CR.
The dispute began when Collard's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw from the case. The attorney claimed there were no reversible or non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal. This type of motion is known as an Anders brief, named after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established guidelines for such situations. The attorney provided Collard with a copy of the brief and informed her of her right to respond.
Collard did not file a response or request a copy of the appellate record. The State of Texas agreed with the attorney's assessment, stating that there were no non-frivolous issues to address. This lack of response from both parties led the court to conduct an independent review of the case.
The Texas Court of Appeals, consisting of Justices Bassel, Birdwell, and Walker, examined the record and the Anders brief. They found that the appeal was largely without merit, except for two minor clerical errors in the trial court's judgment. Justice Brian Walker authored the memorandum opinion.
The court identified that the trial court had improperly assessed a $5 reimbursement fee without a statutory basis. According to Texas law, only costs that are explicitly authorized can be imposed on defendants. The court removed this fee from the judgment.
Additionally, the court found that the trial court's written judgment incorrectly stated that $270 in court costs had been assessed against Collard. During sentencing, the judge had waived these costs, but the written judgment did not reflect this waiver. The appellate court corrected this discrepancy, ensuring that the judgment aligned with the trial court's pronouncement.
After making these corrections, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment as modified. This ruling underscores the importance of accurate record-keeping in the judicial process, especially regarding costs and fees imposed on defendants.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Collard's case. It highlights the court's role in ensuring that defendants are not unfairly burdened with costs that are not legally justified. This ruling may serve as a precedent for similar cases involving clerical errors in judgments.
Going forward, this decision reinforces the need for trial courts to maintain accurate records and adhere to statutory guidelines when assessing costs. It also emphasizes the importance of the appellate process in correcting errors that may arise during trials.
As for what’s next, Collard's case is now concluded unless she chooses to pursue further legal action. The appellate court's decision is final unless appealed to a higher court, such as the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. However, details about any potential related cases or appeals were not available in the court filing.