DFW News App

WICHITA FALLS (KFDX/KJTL) — One of the top defense attorneys in Texas has filed the first appeal brief on behalf of Anthony Patterson, seeking to overturn his conviction and sentences for child sex crimes and human trafficking.

Patterson, 48, of Wichita Falls, was found guilty by a Tarrant County jury on one count of trafficking of a person, three counts of indecency with a child, and one count of sexual performance by a child on Nov. 19, 2024.

The following day, the same jury sentenced Patterson to an effective 33-year prison sentence. He’s currently incarcerated at the Jordan Unit in Pampa, Texas.

Patterson hired Keith Hampton, a renowned and high-profile defense attorney from Austin, to represent him on appeal. Hampton also served as the appellate attorney for James Irven Staley, III, whose capital murder conviction for the death of 2-year-old Jason Wilder McDaniel was reversed and remanded on March 6, 2025.

On Friday, June 20, Hampton filed Patterson’s first appellate brief, alleging five issues with the trial court’s judgment, requesting that the Second Court of Appeals reverse the convictions and remand the case for a new trial.

Issue 1 — Double Jeopardy

In the first issue presented in Patterson’s appellate brief, Hampton alleged that Patterson’s sentences for counts four, seven, and ten of the indictment violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.

• Count 4 — Sexual Performance of a Child (Sentenced to 18 years in prison)
• Count 7 — Indecency with a Child (Sentenced to 5 years in prison)
• Count 10 — Trafficking of a Person (Sentenced to 10 years in prison)

The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents an individual from being punished more than once for the same criminal offense.

The brief alleged that three of the five counts for which Patterson was found guilty involved the same child victim and occurred on the same date, and therefore, he was “punished thrice for the same offenses.”

“Because the indecency and sexual performance counts were both included under the trafficking count, Appellant suffered multiple punishments for the same offense, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause,” Patterson’s appeal brief said.

According to Patterson’s appellate brief, “only one of these convictions can stand,” and the Second Court of Appeals should vacate the 5-year sentence for indecency and the 10-year sentence for trafficking.

Issue 2 & 3 — Insufficient Evidence

The second and third issues that Patterson’s appellate brief alleged involve the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the prosecution in Patterson’s case.

According to the appellate brief, the prosecution failed to prove all of the elements of the felony offenses alleged against Patterson beyond a reasonable doubt.

“The conviction for sexual performance… more than lacks quantity and quality,” the appellate brief said. “Evidence to support the conviction is wholly absent.”

The appellate brief argued that there is no evidence of sexual conduct by the child, and that the prosecution “produced no evidence.”

“There is no evidence that Appellant intended to promote or assist in any sexual performance of a child,” the appellate brief said.

Issue 4 — Letter from Jandreani Bell

The fourth issue argued in Patterson’s appellate brief is that a letter from Patterson’s alleged co-defendant, Jandreani Bell, was admitted despite objections from his defense attorneys during trial.

Bell, 32, of Vernon, faces charges of indecency with a child, two counts of trafficking of a person, and one count of attempted trafficking of a person related to Patterson’s case.

During Patterson’s trial in Fort Worth, testimony from the two child victims revealed that Bell, their adult cousin whom they called Gentry, was responsible for transporting the girls from their home in Vernon to Wichita Falls, where she later met up with and was paid by Patterson.

Though Bell was originally listed as a potential witness in the trial, she was never called to testify. Prosecutors explained during closing arguments that if she had taken the stand, they would not have been legally able to prosecute her for her role in the human trafficking case.

According to Patterson’s defense, however, Bell’s absence from Patterson’s trial should have kept the letter in question from being admitted into evidence, since Bell was not able to authenticate the letter.

Patterson’s defense argued that the admission of the letter violates the Confrontation Clause of the Constitution, asserting that “an accused has the constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.”

According to the appellate brief, the prosecution made no effort to produce Bell as a witness and offered no evidence that she was unavailable to testify, so the letter amounted to inadmissible hearsay.

Issue 5 — Outcry Witness

Patterson’s fifth and final issue addressed in the appellate brief filed on June 20 dealt with the outcry witness offered by the prosecution regarding the two child victims.

Before Patterson’s trial, a hearing was held in the 78th District Court, where Judge Meredith Kennedy ruled that a forensic interviewer with Patsy’s House would serve as the outcry witness.

Patterson’s appellate brief alleged that the mother of the victims was the first person to whom an outcry of sexual abuse was made, not Denise Roberts, Patsy’s House Executive Director, who testified as the outcry witness during Patterson’s trial.

Patterson’s brief argued that the two potential outcry witnesses gave very different accounts of what the victims said, suggesting the outcry made to the victim’s mother involved nothing more than a massage.

“When a child tells another that an adult touched their ‘private parts’, there can be all sorts of innocent explanations,” the appellate brief said. “When that same report is confirmed to be a criminal offense against a child, it means something entirely different.”

The appellate brief argued that due to the jury’s interest in Roberts’ testimony and the weight it held, Patterson was harmed by the use of Roberts as the outcry witness.

Prosecution used ‘shotgun approach’

In the conclusion of the appellate brief, the defense argued that prosecutors overcharged Patterson.

“The prosecution… relied on a shotgun approach to conviction — allege everything from harmful employment and trafficking of children, claim it to be continuous and see what sticks,” the appellate brief said.

Patterson’s defense alleged that because of the prosecution’s overcharging, “the jury was erroniously invited to punish Appellate unconstitutionally for three counts of the same offense.”

“This Court should acquit Appellant of sexual performance of a child, bar prosecution for trafficking and indecency with a child under counts four and seven, and remand the remaining causes for a new trial,” the appellate brief said.

Barring any extensions, the prosecution now has 30 days to file a brief in response to Patterson’s. Hampton has requested the opportunity to present oral arguments to the Second Court of Appeals before the case is submitted.

---

A full recap of Patterson’s trial in November 2024 in Tarrant County can be read by clicking on one of the images below: