1 In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ NO. 09 -23- 00023
- CR NO. 09 -23- 0002 4- CR

__________________ TYE KOBI JACKSON
- WELLS , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No s . 21
- 3808 7 and 21
- 38089

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Tye Kobi Jackson

- Wells , the defendant in trial court cause numbers 21

- 38087 and 21

- 3808 9, agreed to plead guilty i n each case under plea agreement s he made with the State. In cause number 21

- 38087 , Jackson

Wells pleaded guilty to burglarizing a habitation , a second

- degree2 felony

. 1 In cause number 21

- 38089, Jackson

- Wells pleaded guilty to theft, a state
- jail felony. 2 In exchange for his pleas , the State recommended that the trial court defer the adjudication of his guilt and place Jackson

Wells on community supervision
. In carrying out the plea agreement, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Jackson

- Wells guilty of the offense , deferred the adjudication of his guilt, and signed and order placing Jackson

- Wells

on community supervision. In cause number 21

- 38087 the trial court ordered Jackson

- Wells placed on community supervision for ten years , while in cause number 21

- 3808 9 the trial court placed him on community supervision for five years. Months later, the State moved to revoke the deferred

- adjudication orders . In the motions to revoke, the State alleged that Jackson

- Wells violated four conditions of his community supervis ion
. Following the hearing the court conduct ed on the motions , the trial court found the allegation s to be true
. Rather than revoking the deferred

- adjudication orders , however, the trial court amended the terms of its community

1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02

. 2 See id

. § 31.03
.3 supervision orders and required Jackson

- Wells to serve 90

- days upfront jail

- time and to complete a one - year residential treatment program. Less than two months later , the State filed new motions asking the trial court to revoke its decision to defer the adjudication of Jackson

Wells’ guilt in the cases
. In these motions, the State alleged that Jackson

Wells violated two of the conditions of the trial court’s community

supervision orders while he was jailed in the Jefferson County Correctional Facility. D uring the hearing on the State’s motions , Jackson

- Wells pleaded “true” to one of the allegation s in the State ’s motion and not true to the other
. When the evidentiary hearing on the State’s motions concluded , and based on the evidence the trial court heard during the hearing to support the State’s motion, the trial court (1) revoked its community

supervision orders , (2) pronounced Jac k son - Wells guilty and sentenced him to twenty years in prison in trial court cause number 21

- 3 8087 on his conviction for burglarizing a habitation, and (3) pronounced Jackson

-4 Wells guilty and sentenced him to two years’ in prison in trial court cause number 21

- 3 8089 on his conviction for theft

. 3 After Jackson

- Wells filed notices of appeal, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent him in his appeals. T he attorney discharged his responsibilities to Jackson

- Wells by filing an Anders brief

. 4 In the brief, Jackson

- Wells’ attorney represents there are no arguable errors that he can argue that would lead to the Court’s reversing the trial court’s judgments in the se two appeal s . 5 In our opinion, t he brief the attorney filed on Jackson

- Wells’ behalf provides a professional evaluation of the record
. In the brief, Jackson

- Wells’ attorney explains why, under the records in the se appeals, no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment s . 6 Subsequently, the attorney appointed to represent Jackson

- Wells filed motions to withdraw, an d he attached letters to his motions addressed to Jackson

- Wells. They state

3 The trial court ordered Jackson

- Wells’ sentenc es in both cases to run concurrently
. See id . § 12.35 (providing punishment range of 180 days to two years in jail for state

- jail felonies ) , id. § 12.33 ( providing punishment range of two to twenty years in prison for second

- degree felonies )

. 4 See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 5 See id.; H igh v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1978). 6 See id

.5 the attorney sent Jackson

- Wells a copy of the brief and the record s in these appeals
. T he Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals also notified Jackson

Wells , by letter, of his right to file a pro se brief or response on or before May 3, 2022. Thereafter , Jackson

- Wells filed a pro se response . In it, Jackson

- Wells argues he shouldn’t have received a twenty

- year - sentence in his case for burglarizing a habitation because t he offense was committed when he “was a juvenile
. ” 7 When an appellate court receives an Anders brief and a later

- filed pro se response, it has two choices. 8 “ It may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error . (citation omitted) Or , it may

7 The record includes an order signed by the presiding judge of the Jefferson County District Court who, in July 2021 , was responsible for handl ing juvenile proceedings in Jefferson County. In the July 202 1 order, the juvenile court waive d its right to exerc ise jurisdiction over Jackson

- Wells for the offense alleging that Jackson

- Wells burglarized a habitation in February 2021 and for the offense alleging that he committed felony theft in March 2021. The juvenile court ordered Jackson

- Wells “transferred to a Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas for Criminal Proceedings to be dealt with as an adult in accordance with the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.” 8 See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (cleaned up).6 determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may b e appointed to brief the issues. ” 9 We have independently examine d the record s in Jackson

- Wells ’ appeals to determine whether the attorney assigned to represent him has

a non - frivolous argument that would support either appeal
. 10 After reviewing the clerk’ s records, the reporter’s records, and the attorney’s brief, we agree with counsel ’ s conclusion that no arguable grounds exist to support the appeals
. Thus, it follows the appeals are frivolous

. 11 For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another attorney to re
- brief them

. 12

9 Id. 10 Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders , 386 U.S. at 744). 11 See Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 827

- 28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and rev iewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). 12 See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Jackson

- Wells may challenge our decision in the case s by filing petition s for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.7 The trial court’s judgmen t s in cause numbers 21

- 38087 and 21

- 3808 9 are affirmed. AFFIRMED

.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on August 10, 2023 Opinion Delivered August 16, 2023 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ

.