LiveNOW from FOX: Mark Astor on What Comes Next After the Karmelo Anthony Sentencing

Outlet: LiveNOW from FOX | Appearance Type: Video Interview
Last reviewed July 10, 2026 by Mark Astor, Florida attorney.

AT A GLANCE

Mark Astor joined LiveNOW from FOX the day after a Texas jury sentenced Karmelo Anthony to 35 years for the murder of Austin Metcalf. 

Mark walks through how Texas juries decide both guilt and punishment, why he was surprised the defense’s sentencing case leaned on a single witness, and why he expects fights over jury selection, jury instructions, and defense counsel’s performance to keep this case in the courts for years.

SETTING THE SCENE

On June 9, 2026, a Texas jury convicted Karmelo Anthony of murder in the fatal stabbing of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at a Frisco track meet, then sentenced him the same day to 35 years in prison, within a range that could have gone as high as 99 years. Anthony was 17 at the time of the stabbing and was tried as an adult.

The next day, LiveNOW from FOX brought Mark Astor back on air to break down what the sentence means and what happens next. Astor, a former prosecutor, had appeared on the network days earlier during the trial itself.

THE BREAKDOWN

In Texas, when a defendant chooses a jury trial, the jury also decides the sentence, not the judge. Mark said that is exactly how this case played out. The jury heard the evidence, found Anthony guilty, then set his punishment within the statutory range.

What surprised Mark most was how thin the defense’s case was at sentencing. The only witness who testified on Anthony’s behalf was his mother. He said that is a stretch to hear, knowing the defense likely expected to lose the guilt phase. 

Mark would have expected an expert, maybe a forensic psychologist, ready to speak to Anthony’s age, immaturity, or personal history, the kind of testimony that gives a jury a reason to hold back from the maximum.

Mark had already flagged two likely appeal issues in an earlier conversation with the anchors: jury selection, which he called “jury elimination,” and jury instructions. 

On instructions specifically, he pointed to the judge’s refusal to instruct the jury on criminally negligent homicide as a lesser offense. Prosecutors, he said, would have had every reason to ask for that instruction themselves, since a strong case can usually absorb an extra option for the jury without losing.

He also expects a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel against Anthony’s trial attorney, separate from the jury issues. Mark has sat on both sides of that kind of claim before: once as a witness testifying about a colleague’s conduct, once representing a defendant raising the claim himself.

None of this means Anthony walks free anytime soon. Texas law doesn’t allow an appellate bond for a murder conviction, so he stays in custody while the appeal plays out. 

Mark estimated the appellate process alone could take a year to a year and a half, and if a reversal happens, the case likely gets retried, adding years on top of that. Selecting an unbiased jury the second time will be its own fight, given how much national attention the case has already drawn. He expects the defense to ask for a change of venue.

A civil suit from the Metcalf family is possible, Mark said, though he was careful to separate that from the financial stakes of a case like O.J. Simpson’s. The real value of a civil case here, he said, is the ability to depose Anthony directly, since the criminal case never put him on the stand.

On the sentencing process itself, Mark noted that Texas allows the victim’s family to address the jury before punishment is decided, the same way Florida’s own constitution guarantees crime victims the right to be heard at sentencing. The Metcalf family used that opportunity to ask for the maximum.

Asked what made this case stand out nationally, Mark pointed to the racial dynamics: a white victim, a Black defendant, and an all-white jury, against a backdrop of protests outside the courthouse. He said he was surprised the prosecution allowed an all-white jury to be seated at all, calling it a potential opening for the defense on appeal.

Mark closed by returning to the fact that Anthony never testified. If the defense was building toward self-defense, he said, that decision is worth scrutinizing, since the entire theory turns on whether Anthony’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances. 

Without testimony establishing any history between Anthony and Metcalf, Mark said it’s hard to see how the jury could have found that reasonableness on the record in front of them.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

KEY LEGAL TERMS REFERENCES IN THIS SEGMENT

Bifurcated jury trial: In Texas, when a defendant elects a jury trial, the same jury decides both guilt and, if there’s a conviction, the sentence, rather than the judge deciding punishment separately. 

Range of punishment: The minimum and maximum sentence a jury can choose from once it convicts, set by the specific offense. Here, the range ran from 5 to 99 years. 

Lesser-included offense instruction: A jury instruction that gives jurors the option to convict on a less serious charge than the one charged, if the evidence supports it. Judges aren’t required to give one unless the evidence calls for it. 

Ineffective assistance of counsel: A claim that a defense attorney’s performance fell below a reasonable standard and affected the outcome of the case, often raised on appeal. 

Appellate bond: A bond that allows a convicted defendant to remain free while appealing. Texas law doesn’t make one available for a murder conviction. 

Change of venue: A request to move a trial to a different county, typically made when local publicity makes it difficult to seat an unbiased jury. 

Victim’s right to be heard: The right of a crime victim, or their family, to address the court before sentencing. Florida guarantees this right  (Fla. Const. art. I, § 16)

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• In Texas, the same jury that convicts a defendant also decides the sentence, choosing a number within the statutory range.
• Mark expects the appeal to center on jury selection, the denied jury instruction on criminally negligent homicide, and a likely ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
• Anthony stays in prison during the appeal since Texas doesn’t allow an appellate bond for murder convictions, and the process could take years.
• A civil suit from the Metcalf family is possible, largely as a way to get Anthony’s testimony under oath.
• Mark flagged the all-white jury as a potential opening for the defense on appeal, given the case’s national attention.

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

Speaker labels reflect the two identifiable voices in this segment: Mark Astor and the LiveNOW from FOX anchor. Where the transcript names the co-anchor directly, that speaker is labeled Bo. See editor notes at the end of this document for transcript correction and attribution notes.

Anchor: And welcome back into a Live Now from Fox, where we’re keeping up with the verdict of the Karmelo Anthony trial that just wrapped up yesterday. This is where we want to continue the conversation about this trial, and this is where we want to bring in Mark Astor, our legal expert, back on here again. Mark, thank you as always for joining us. So, with the sentencing coming down yesterday, can you walk us through a little bit about how that process goes? As we know, Karmelo Anthony was sentenced to 35 years in prison. This could have ranged from 5 years to 99 years. Can you tell us how we got to the 35-year mark, as well as that parole he’s eligible for after serving half of that sentence?

Mark Astor: Yeah, so in Texas, when a defendant decides they want a jury trial, they’re also deciding who gets to the guilt phase and the punishment phase, who’s going to make that decision. Now, in Texas, they also decided that it’s going to be the jury. So the jury heard the case, they made a finding of guilt, and then it was up to the jury to decide what was the appropriate punishment. Now, based on what he was convicted of, and obviously the offense that he was found guilty of, there was a certain range that they were able to find, and that’s how they came up with a number. Bo, you there?

Bo: Yep, yep, I’m here. So when it comes to this, yeah, I’ll go. We were working on something here, my live TV.

Mark Astor: No worries.

Bo: But I do want to ask too, when it comes to the sentencing here and also the laws in Texas, does age play a factor here, as this crime did happen when he was 17?

Mark Astor: So I think there’s a couple of things here, Bo. First of all, age obviously is a big factor, and I’m a little surprised. From what I understand, the only witness who testified in the sentencing for the defendant was his mother. I would have thought, knowing this was a case the defense would likely lose, and we talked about this just a couple days ago, that it was a great case for the state, I would have thought they would have had somebody who could come in, probably an expert or a forensic psychologist, who could come in and explain to the jury why this is a defendant who shouldn’t be sentenced to the maximum. Why he shouldn’t be sentenced to such a long amount of prison time because he’s young, he’s immature, perhaps there’s something in his history, perhaps there’d been some abuse, something the jury could hang their hat on. Just to have the mother there saying, “Look, this is my child, he’s my boy, don’t sentence him to life,” or whatever it was. I’m just wondering what happened. What was in the defense attorney’s mind here, knowing they probably lose the case? It didn’t seem like there was a whole lot of preparation for the sentencing, and I don’t like to second-guess another lawyer, but knowing this was a tough case to win, I would have had that all ready to go, and it didn’t seem like they did.

Bo: And are they going to be looking for an appeals process now? This is something that comes up a lot right now when we’re talking about this case. What could that potentially look like? Is that a move the defense could possibly make next?

Mark Astor: Yeah, and we talked about this a couple of days ago, right, and I said the two areas where there could be a potential appeal are, one, jury selection, or as I called it, jury elimination, and the second thing was the jury instructions. Now, from my understanding, the judge refused to give an instruction on criminally negligent homicide, which would have been a lesser offense. Now, typically, judges don’t want to give an additional jury instruction unless there’s evidence to support it. Now, if I’m the prosecutor, I’m saying to myself, we have a great case here, the facts are on our side, why not ask the judge to give that instruction? Because it could be that an appellate court looks at this and says the trial court got it wrong, they should have given this additional instruction. So I think there are two main areas here potentially for an appellate court to look at. I don’t know what evidentiary rulings the trial judge made during the trial, but obviously those will be attacked. And I think ultimately there’ll probably be a claim made against the defense attorney for ineffective assistance of counsel. When I was a prosecutor, I testified in one of those hearings. I also represented a defendant where there was an allegation that the defense attorney did not provide an effective defense for the client. So I think that’s going to come down the pipe as well. You’ve got a young man here facing potentially 35 years in prison, so they’re going to do everything they can to try to get this conviction reversed. And unfortunately, when you’re a defense lawyer, sometimes the finger gets pointed at you, and I think it’s going to happen in this case. There’s nothing to lose, why wouldn’t you?

Bo: And if this does happen, how long does this process look like for an appeal? And does Karmelo Anthony remain in prison during this time if they were to start that appeals process?

Mark Astor: Yeah, he’s going to sit there. My understanding is, in Texas, if you’re convicted of murder, you do not have a right to some type of appellate bond. So he’s going to stay there. An interesting comment by the district attorney was how the family got justice, and perhaps for that one day they did, but this case is not over. This could take two, three, four years to go through the court system. You’ve got an appellate court that’s going to look at this. I don’t know if there’ll be some type of appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. There’s going to be a claim probably made against the defense attorney for ineffective assistance of counsel, and if there’s a reversal, this case is going to get retried, probably. So I don’t see this being over for several years, and unfortunately, for the Metcalf family, they’re going to have to live with this for quite a significant period of time, which is a shame.

Bo: It is. But this is the way our justice system is set up, and you have a young man who’s also been convicted of murder, and he wants his case potentially reheard. And to have a case like this reheard, how do you reselect jury members for that, as this has garnered nationwide attention? Everybody knows about this case. How do you select jurors who would have no prerequisite knowledge of this case?

Mark Astor: Yeah, that’s going to be a problem for the defense. They might say to the trial judge, “you know what, we can’t get a fair hearing in this county anymore, can we move it? We’d like to have this heard in a different county where there wasn’t so much publicity.” So, Pandora’s box has really been opened, and that’s what happens in a murder case, especially one like this, where you’ve got two young people, a victim who’s deceased, and a young defendant facing a long prison sentence. So this is going to go on, and it is going to be interesting to watch, but my heart breaks for both families, because they’re both losing a son, but especially the Metcalf family, because they’re not getting any closure anytime soon.

Bo: And as we watch that process play out, when we’re talking about the appellate side as well, how long could that even take, when you talk about how long an appellate court hearing takes, or how long that whole process takes?

Mark Astor: Yeah, I mean, this could go on for a year, year and a half potentially. Does the appellate court want to have oral argument? Sometimes the court says, “okay, we’ve read the briefs, now I want lawyers to come in and argue the case.” So this could drag on for a little bit, and we may have to bring in another lawyer to do the appeal.

Bo: And there’s also speculation online of the Metcalf family pursuing a possible civil suit. Is that something that could be pursued? This is just online speculation we’re hearing through social media such as X.

Mark Astor: It’s possible. When there’s a civil suit, it’s not like the O.J. case, where there was a pot of gold potentially at the end of the rainbow. I don’t think there is in this case, but what’s interesting about filing a civil suit is they could potentially look to put the defendant on the stand and take his deposition. Now, I’m sure the defense counsel’s going to object to that, but that’s one of the reasons to file a civil case, you can find out what’s really going on in the case. So do I think it could happen? It might. Do I think it gives them any more closure? Probably not, but they may do it anyway.

Bo: And then I was curious about the process we saw play out in the courtroom as well. If I have this right, the family of Austin Metcalf spoke after the sentencing, and in some of my experience, I’ve seen a family speak before the sentencing, as that could possibly weigh on punishment. Can you tell us how that works in Texas?

Mark Astor: Yeah, it sounds like in that case, because the defendant was found guilty, the defendant’s family gets to plead their case to the jury. First of all, the burden sort of shifts to them to say, “please don’t sentence us to this amount of time.” But also, the victim’s family has a right to be heard. Even in Florida, where I practice, our constitution provides for a victim’s family, and a victim, if it’s not a murder case, to be heard. So they had a right to be heard and tell the judge, “this has destroyed our family,” and it has destroyed their family, “and you should give him the maximum,” to the jury in this case, who were making the sentencing decision. But whoever’s making the decision, the victim’s family wants to be heard, and they have a right to be heard.

Bo: And while we’ve been monitoring this case, there’s been a lot of protests outside that courthouse. We’ve seen really high emotions flaring, especially when the sentencing came down. In your legal expertise, what makes this case really stand out across the United States, as we see murder cases happening all the time? What really stood out to you about this one?

Mark Astor: Well, look, you had a white victim and a Black defendant, and unfortunately, race has become a very hot-button topic throughout the country. And I think what we’re seeing here is just a microcosm of what’s potentially going on in the country, which is a shame. It really is, but part of it was caused by the fact we had an all-white jury. And I said to you when we spoke a few days ago, I was a little surprised the prosecutor would do that, especially knowing what was going on outside the courthouse, and that it could potentially be that get-out-of-jail-free card on an appeal. So here we are. It’s a shame, and this is going to continue.

Bo: Mark, I want to give you the final word here. Are there any other last points or final thoughts you had about this case, and what we can make sure we keep an eye on as this continues to develop?

Mark Astor: Well, obviously we want to watch the appellate procedure, see what happens with that. Let’s see if there’s a civil case filed, I think that’s interesting. And let’s see what kind of claim is made against the lawyer who represented the defendant. What’s interesting is, my understanding is the defendant did not testify. And as a defense lawyer, you rarely want to put your own client on to be subjected to cross-examination. But if they were going to make a self-defense case, it may have been necessary for the defendant to testify. Was there any prior interaction between these two individuals? Did Austin Metcalf have a reputation in the community for being an aggressive individual? We don’t know any of these things, but I would have wanted to know that as a defense attorney, because that would have led into whether the actions of the defendant were reasonable. Because that’s really what the whole self-defense case was about, the reasonableness of his actions. And if there’s no background to substantiate that, how do you argue, “I took a knife to a fistfight, but I should be excused”? I’m just wondering what the defense attorney knew, didn’t know, or should have known. And that may lead into a claim that he didn’t live up to the standard of care he should have for his client. He didn’t do his homework. We’ll have to wait and see what happens, but this is not over, Bo.

Bo: And we’ll make sure we stay on top of it. Mark Astor, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate you coming on here and breaking it all down for us.

Mark Astor: Good to see you again, my friend. Take care.

Bo: Thank you, you as well.

ABOUT MARK ASTOR

Mark Astor spent the early part of his career as an Assistant State Attorney in Palm Beach County, Florida, where he prosecuted thousands of criminal cases and served as Chief of two County Court Divisions.

He brings that background into his role as a legal analyst, which is why producers at FOX News, LiveNOW from FOX, and local CBS and ABC affiliates call him when a complex criminal case needs a clear explanation.

His law practice is a different matter. Mark Astor and Astor Simovitch Law focus exclusively on behavioral health law: helping Florida families navigate Marchman Act petitions, Baker Act proceedings, and the legal intervention process when a loved one is in a mental health or addiction crisis and refuses help.

If that’s the situation you’re in, schedule a free confidential consultation or call us at 561-419-6095.

A NOTE ON MARK ASTOR’S MEDIA COMMENTARY

Mark Astor’s appearances as a legal analyst cover a wide range of legal cases in the news. This commentary draws on his background as a former prosecutor and his 30-plus years of courtroom experience.

It does not represent the services offered by Astor Simovitch Law, which does not handle criminal defense matters. For criminal defense needs, please consult an attorney who practices in that area.