The Texas Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Andrew Maurice Killebrew for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The court ruled that Killebrew's trial court did not violate his rights regarding the preparation time afforded to his court-appointed counsel. This decision has implications for how courts handle attorney preparation time in future cases.
Killebrew, who was sentenced to eight years in prison, argued that his attorney did not have the required ten days to prepare for his adjudication hearing. The ruling affects Killebrew directly, as he will continue to serve his sentence unless further legal action is taken.
Background
The case began in September 2019 when Killebrew was indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon under Texas Penal Code § 22.02(a)(2). He initially entered a plea of nolo contendere, which means he did not contest the charge. The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed him on community supervision for eight years.
In August 2024, Attorney M’Liss Christian was appointed to represent Killebrew after the State of Texas filed a motion to adjudicate his guilt and revoke his community supervision. However, the State later withdrew that motion, leading Christian to request to withdraw as Killebrew's attorney, which the trial court granted on August 19, 2024.
In January 2025, the State again moved to revoke Killebrew’s community supervision and adjudicate his guilt. At the hearing, Christian represented Killebrew, but there was no record indicating when she was appointed for this specific proceeding. The trial court heard testimony from various witnesses, including Killebrew himself, and ultimately adjudicated him guilty, sentencing him to eight years in prison.
The Ruling
The Texas Court of Appeals, led by Justice H. Todd McCray, affirmed the trial court's judgment. Killebrew contended that the trial court violated Article 1.051(e) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which entitles appointed counsel ten days to prepare for a proceeding. Killebrew argued that Christian was the only attorney present at the adjudication hearing and that the record did not show she had the full ten days to prepare.
The court ruled, “Because the record does not establish that Christian had fewer than ten days of actual preparation time, Killebrew has not demonstrated that the trial court violated article 1.051(e).” The court noted that Killebrew bore the burden of proof to show reversible error, which he failed to do.
The judges involved in the ruling included Justices Lori I. Valenzuela, Adrian A. Spears II, and H. Todd McCray. The court referenced a previous case, Salazar v. State, to support its decision, stating that the record must affirmatively demonstrate a violation of the preparation time requirement.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving the preparation time of court-appointed counsel. It underscores the importance of maintaining a clear record regarding attorney appointments and preparation time. Defendants may face challenges if they cannot provide evidence to support claims of inadequate preparation time for their attorneys.
For Killebrew, this ruling means his conviction and sentence will stand unless he can find a new legal avenue to challenge the decision. The court's decision reinforces the need for defendants to be proactive in ensuring their legal representation is adequately prepared.
What's Next
Killebrew has the option to appeal this ruling to a higher court, but details on whether he will pursue that route were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that directly connect to this ruling.