In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-18-00001-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 355th District Court

Hood County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR13025

Before Walker, Kerr, and Pittman, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

JACOB WYLIE ROMINE, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Appellant Jacob Wylie Romine, Jr. 

pleaded guilty to theft under $1,500 with two or more previous convictions. See Tex. 

Penal Code Ann. § 31.03 (West Supp. 2018). The trial court found Romine guilty; 

sentenced him to twenty-four months in jail; suspended the sentence; placed him on 

five years’ community supervision; and ordered him to pay a $1,500 fine and 

$1,249.42 in restitution. 

The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Romine’s community 

supervision, alleging that Romine had violated his community-supervision conditions 

by failing to abstain from the use of a controlled substance, by failing to report in 

person for an office visit, and by being unsuccessfully discharged from residential 

treatment. Romine pleaded true to all of the allegations. The trial court found each 

of the allegations true, revoked Romine’s community supervision, and sentenced him 

to twenty-four months’ confinement. The trial court’s judgment ordered Romine to 

pay $2,255.50 in reparations.1 Romine appeals from the trial court’s judgment 

revoking his community supervision. 

Romine’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as 

counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the 

requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the 

 

1The amount of reparations is supported by documentation in the record. 
3

record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 

744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel notified 

Romine of the motion to withdraw, provided him a copy of the brief, informed him 

of his right to file a pro se response, informed him of his pro se right to seek 

discretionary review should this court hold that the appeal is frivolous, and took 

concrete measures to facilitate Romine’s review of the appellate record. 436 S.W.3d 

313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court afforded Romine the opportunity to file 

a response on his own behalf, but he did not do so.

As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the 

record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is 

frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. 

State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we 

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 

346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with 

counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the 

record that arguably might support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw 

and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Per Curiam
4

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: October 25, 2018