### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-06-00694- CR

Jim m y Jay Jensen, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 277 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NO. 05- 1310 -K 277, H ONO RAB LE K EN ANDERSON, JUDGE P RESIDING

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

We withdraw our opinion and judgme nt dated May 31, 2 0 0 7 , an d substitut e the following opinion and judgme nt in their place

.

Appellant J immy J ay J ensen was convicted of five counts of ag g rava ted sexual assault of a child and two counts of indece ncy with a child by contac t in 2006. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 21.11, 22.021. Appellant was sentenc ed to life imprisonment for eac h count of ag g rava ted sexual assault and to twenty y ear s’ imprisonment for eac h of the indece ncy counts. Ap p el l an t ’s courtappointed attorney has filed a mot ion to withdraw suppor ted by a brie f conc luding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

The brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Calif

ornia by prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of t h e re co rd demonstrating why there are no arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed. See Anders v. Calif

ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State , 300 S.W .3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim.App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 86–87 (1988). Appellant rec eived copies of

counsel’s motion and brief and was advised of his r ight to e x amine the appellate rec ord and to f ile

a pro se brief. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766. The trial court has cer tified that the appellate rec ord has been made available to appellant, and appellant has submitt ed a pro se brief. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W .3d 313, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appe llate court should order 1 entity desig nated to arr ang e appellant’ s acc ess to rec ord to repor t to appellate court when rec ord has bee n made a

vailable to appe llant). We have conducte d an independe nt revie w of the rec ord, includin g ap p el l ate

co u n sel’s brief and appellant’ s brief, and find no reve rsible err or. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We
ag ree with counsel that the rec ord prese nts n o ar gu ably meritorious g rounds for revie w and the
appea l is frivolous.

Counsel’s motion to wit hdrawis g rante d. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

I n our May 31, 2007 opinion, now withdrawn, we aff irmed appellant’ s conviction pursuant 1 to the Anders brief filed by counsel. This Court noted that althoug h appellant had been advised of his right to examine the appe llate re cord a nd to file a pro se brief, no pr o se brief had bee n filed. Appellant later applied to the Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls for a writ of habea s corpus, asser ting that he had b ee n d enied due proce ss beca use the trial court never provided him with acc ess to the rec ord for the purpo s e o f filing a pro se response brief, despite his reque st for such a c c e s s . S e e E x p a r te J e n s e n , WR

- 6 9 , 3 1 9

- 0 4 , 2 0 1 8 WL 2 1 2 6 5 7 1 , a t * 1 ( T e x. Cr im

. A

p p . M a y 9 , 2 0 1 8 )

. I n a per curia m opinion, issued on May 9, 2018, the Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls conclude d that appellant was entitled to the opportunity to fi l e an o u t -of-time pro se response brief to counsel’s Anders brief and orde re d ap p el l an t “re turned to that time at which he may revie w the rec ord and prepa re a pro s e response .” Id. The Court of Criminal Appea ls also order ed that the trial court provide appellant “with acc ess to the trial rec ords for the purpose of filing a pro se response brief” within 10 day s. Id. 2__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices F ield and Toth Affir med Filed: Nove mber 1, 2018 Do Not Publish

3