NO. 12-08-00318-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JESSIE JAMES JACKSON, § APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Jessie James Jackson appeals his conviction for conspiracy to commit capital murder.

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief asserting compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.

1969). We dismiss Appellant’s appeal. 

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit capital murder. Appellant

pleaded guilty without a plea agreement, and the trial court found him guilty. Following a hearing,

the trial court assessed punishment at imprisonment for forty years. This appeal followed. 

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel states

that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the facts of

this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1978), counsel’s brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural history of

the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal. We have
2

considered counsel’s brief and have conducted our own independent review of the record. See

Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346,

350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178

S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION

As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that this appeal is wholly

frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and we dismiss this

appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09 (“After the completion of these four steps, the

court of appeals will either agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous, grant the attorney’s motion to

withdraw, and dismiss the appeal, or it will determine that there may be plausible grounds for

appeal.”). 

Counsel has a duty, within five days of the date of this opinion, to send a copy of the opinion

and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. 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 he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review.

See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed

within thirty days following the date of this opinion or the date the last timely motion for rehearing

is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be

filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along

with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary

review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered July 31, 2009.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)