Opinion filed April 16, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

____________

No. 11-14-00272-CR

____________

ROBERT AUBREY JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18764B

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

As part of a plea agreement, Robert Aubrey Jackson agreed to plead guilty to 

a third-degree felony offense of driving while intoxicated in exchange for receiving 

a four-year sentence for the offense. The trial court gave Appellant written and oral 

plea admonishments. One of the written admonishments provided that, if the trial 

court rejected the plea agreement, Appellant would be permitted to withdraw his 

plea of guilty. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense. Based on 
2

Appellant’s criminal history, the trial court rejected the plea agreement. Appellant 

did not withdraw his guilty plea. After receiving evidence at a subsequent 

disposition hearing, the trial court convicted Appellant of the offense, and it assessed 

his punishment at confinement for five years. We dismiss the appeal. 

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The 

motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously 

examines the record and applicable law and states that she has concluded that the 

appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the motion and 

the brief and a motion for pro se access to the record, and counsel has advised 

Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. A 

response has not been filed.1 Court-appointed counsel has complied with the 

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 

S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and 

Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). 

Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have 

independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and 

should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. 

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may 

file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the 

attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the 

opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along 

 

1By letter, this court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response 

to counsel’s brief.
3

with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that he may file a 

petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

April 16, 2015

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.