Days after a Collin County jury convicted him and handed down a 35-year prison sentence, Karmelo Anthony filed a notice of appeal, and asked the court to give him a free lawyer. Court documents describe Anthony as a "penniless, destitute and indigent person" who is "too poor to employ counsel."

That claim lands differently when you know that a GiveSendGo fundraiser organized by his mother raised around $634,000 against a goal of nearly $1.4 million. The campaign was set up less than two weeks after Anthony fatally stabbed Austin Metcalf, a junior and star athlete at Memorial High School in Frisco, Texas, at a high school track meet in April 2025.

The gap between the fundraiser haul and the indigency claim is the kind of detail that taxpayers deserve to see plainly. A convicted killer's family collected more than half a million dollars from donors, and now the public may be asked to foot the bill for his appeal.

The conviction and the sentence

A Collin County jury found Anthony guilty on Tuesday and sentenced him to 35 years behind bars. Anthony, a student-athlete from Frisco Centennial High School, stabbed Metcalf in the chest at the track meet. Metcalf died from the wound.

Following sentencing, Anthony was transferred to the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and transported to the Pack Unit near Navasota, Texas. Within days, his legal team filed the appeal notice and the request for a court-appointed public defender.

The court documents obtained by Fox News Digital are blunt in their language: Anthony is described as "penniless, destitute and indigent." Whether the court accepts that characterization, given the fundraising record, remains an open question. Fox News Digital reported reaching out to Anthony's attorney and to GiveSendGo for comment.

Where the money went

The GiveSendGo campaign was organized by Kala Hayes, Anthony's mother. It was created to help cover legal fees and other expenses. The fundraiser pulled in roughly $634,000 over the past year before being taken down earlier this week, after the conviction.

GiveSendGo posted a statement to X explaining the closure:

"The fundraiser was created to support pre-trial needs, and those funds were dispersed over the past year for lawful purposes, including legal defense and family relocation with that stated purpose now complete the fundraiser has been closed. Our policy is that a fundraiser's stated purpose stays accurate so givers always know what they are supporting."

Two words in that statement deserve attention: "family relocation." GiveSendGo's own website policy for legal defense fundraisers states that such campaigns "must clearly state that all funds raised are intended solely for legal defense costs." The policy adds that fundraisers in this category "cannot be used to raise funds for personal support, living expenses, or other purposes alongside legal defense."

The platform's policy also requires that funds be sent directly to a licensed attorney involved in the defense, not distributed to the defendant or the organizer.

So the fundraiser was supposed to be for legal defense only. GiveSendGo itself says the money went to legal defense and family relocation. And now Anthony tells a court he has nothing.

The math that doesn't add up

Start with the number: $634,000 raised. That is not pocket change. It is not a modest GoFundMe for bail money. It is a six-figure war chest assembled through donor generosity on a platform that markets itself to faith-based and conservative givers.

GiveSendGo says the funds were "dispersed over the past year for lawful purposes." But the platform's own rules say homicide-related legal defense fundraisers must go solely to legal costs, routed through a licensed attorney. If money also covered relocation and living expenses, that raises a straightforward question: Did the campaign comply with the platform's stated rules?

GiveSendGo closed the fundraiser and called the stated purpose "complete." The platform did not address whether any funds remained undistributed at the time of closure. It did not detail how much went to attorneys versus how much went to relocation. Those gaps matter, especially now that Anthony is telling a Texas court he cannot afford a lawyer.

What a public defender request means for taxpayers

When a convicted defendant claims indigency and the court grants a public defender, the cost shifts to the public. Texas taxpayers would pick up the tab for Anthony's appellate counsel. That is a system designed for defendants who genuinely cannot afford representation, not for defendants whose families ran a fundraiser that cleared more than half a million dollars.

The court has not yet ruled on Anthony's request. But the filing itself, describing a man whose supporters raised $634,000 as "too poor to employ counsel", tests the credibility of the process.

Nothing in the available record explains where all that money went. Nothing clarifies whether any portion was set aside for an appeal. And nothing accounts for the apparent tension between GiveSendGo's own policy restricting funds to legal defense and the platform's admission that money also paid for family relocation.

Austin Metcalf and the family left behind

Lost in the fundraiser math and the legal maneuvering is the person who cannot file anything. Austin Metcalf was a junior at Memorial High School in Frisco. He was stabbed in the chest at a high school track meet, a place where teenagers are supposed to compete, not die.

His family watched a jury deliver a guilty verdict and a 35-year sentence. Now they get to watch the man convicted of killing their son claim poverty and ask the state for help.

Thirty-five years is a serious sentence. But Anthony will be eligible for release while still relatively young. The Metcalf family's sentence is permanent.

Questions the court should ask

The open questions here are not complicated. They just have not been answered yet.

How much of the $634,000 went to attorneys? How much went to family relocation and living expenses? Was any of it set aside for post-conviction proceedings? Did the disbursement comply with GiveSendGo's own published policy? And if Anthony's legal team was funded by a campaign that raised more than half a million dollars, on what basis does he now claim to be destitute?

A court reviewing the indigency claim should want those answers before handing the bill to taxpayers. Donors who gave to the campaign, believing their money would go to legal defense, deserve answers too.

When someone raises $634,000 and then tells a judge he is penniless, the burden of explanation should fall on him, not on the public asked to pay what comes next.