NUMBER 13-12-00282-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IAN FERRIS JACKSON, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 252nd District Court

of Jefferson County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez1

Appellant, Ian Ferris Jackson, was convicted of robbery, a second-degree felony, 

and assessed a 12-year prison sentence. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.02 (West 

 

1

The Honorable Rose Vela, former Justice of this Court, did not participate in deciding the case 

because her term of office expired on December 31, 2012. “In accordance with the appellate rules, she 

was replaced on panel by Justice Nora L. Longoria”. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.1(a).
2

2011).

2 Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief. We affirm the 

judgment as modified herein.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant’s courtappointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, 

stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal 

can be predicated. On its face, counsel’s brief appears to meet the requirements of 

Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no 

arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance 

'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to 

the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins 

v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. 

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978), appellant’s counsel has stated that, under controlling authority, there is no 

reversible error in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he 

has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) 

served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on appellant; and (3)

informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response.3 See 

 

2

This case is before the Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuant 

to an order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2005).

3

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with 

the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the 

court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the 
3

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d at 409 n.23. Appellant has not responded by filing a timely pro se brief.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the 

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 

U.S. 75, 80 (1988). 

We have reviewed the entire record, counsel’s brief, and the State’s brief and 

find no arguable grounds for appeal. Nonetheless, we note that the calculation of 

administrative fees assessed in the judgment includes a fine of $1,000.00 that was not 

orally pronounced at the time of sentencing. The State has suggested that it would be 

appropriate to modify the judgment to deduct the $1,000.00 fine.

When a conflict exists between the oral pronouncement and the written 

judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. See Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 328 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Accordingly, we modify the judgment to deduct the $1,000.00 

fine. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) (“The authority of an appellate court to reform incorrect 

judgments is not dependent upon the request of any party, nor does it turn on the 

question of whether a party has or has not objected in the trial court. The appellate 

court may act sua sponte and may have the duty to do so. Appellate courts have 

frequently reformed judgments to correct improper recitations or omissions relating to 

punishment.”) (internal citations omitted). The judgment is affirmed as modified. 

 

case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
4

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney has asked this Court for 

permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also 

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–

80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“[I]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, 

he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, 

the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing 

the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s 

motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is 

ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to 

advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.4 See TEX. R. APP. P.

48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 

670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

___________________

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice

Do not Publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered and filed the 

17th day of January, 2013.

 

4 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this 

case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for 

discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review 

must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or 

timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. 

Effective September 1, 2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court 

of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with 

the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.