## NO S

. 12

- 19

- 00306

- CR 12

- 19

- 00307

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

PAUL RAY JACKSON, S R. , APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL S FROM THE 173RD

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDE RSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Paul Ray Jackson, Sr. app eals h is conviction s for possession o f a controlled substance,
and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon

. Appellant ’ s counsel filed a brief in compliance
with Anders v. Californ ia , 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. 1 969). We affirm

.

B ACKGROUND Appella nt was charged by in dictment with possession of a controlled substance, namely cocaine, in the amount of less than one gram, a state jail felon y. 1 Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the charged offense

. The trial cour t accepted Appellant’s plea, found Appellant “ guilty ,” assessed his punishmen t at confinement in a state jail facility for two years and a fine of $500.00, and ordered that Appellant be placed on community supervision for five years. Further, Appellant w as charged by indictment with aggravated assault with a deadly

weapon, a secon d degree felony, 2 by intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly causing bodily

1 See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 481.115(a), ( b) (West 201 7 ).

2 Se e T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22.02(a) (2), (b) (West 2019 ).2 injury to another by striking that person with a machete, and using or exhibi ting a deadly weapon, i. e., a machete, during the commission of the offense

. Appellant pleaded “guilt y” to the charged offense. The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea , found the evidence sufficient to substantiate Appellant’s guilty plea, deferred further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt, and ordered that Appellant be placed on deferred adjudication community supervision fo r ten years. Later, the State filed two motion s, a motion to revoke community supervision in the possession of controlled substance offense, and a motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt
and sentence i n the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon offense. The motions al leg ed , in part , that App ellant violated the terms of his community supervisions when he committed the
offense of evading arrest or detention

. At the hearing on the State’s motions , Appell ant pleaded

“ not true” to th is allegation

. Jacob Sumrall, a patrol corporal with the Athens Police Department, testified that he knew Appellant , having dealt with him on two p revious occasions

. On the date of th e alleged
incident , Sumrall was at the police department in Athens, Texas, c ompleting reports when he
received a telephone call from the dispatcher about a possible disturbance in the parking lot

. The dispatcher inform ed him that she could hear screaming and that one vehicl e appeared to be trying
to hit another vehicle

. Sumrall and Sergeant Billy Westover went t o the parking lot , and
observed a white GMC sport utility vehicle and a white truck facing one another , appro ximately fifteen feet apart

. The vehicles’ windows were down and a black female, later identified at Kassandra Jackson, was driving the white truc k

. Sumrall identified Appellant as the driver of the
SUV. Sumrall stated that Kassandra was crying. He app roached the SUV and shone his flashlight through the passeng er window . Sumrall i dentified Appellant in the driver’s side of the
vehicle. He called Appellant by name and advised him to stop and exit the vehicle. Appellant made eye contact with Sumrall and shifted his vehicle in reverse while Sumrall was still ordering him to stop and calling him by name. Sumrall got into his patrol car and follow ed Appellant’s vehicle as he exited the parking lot , turned onto another street, and drove through several
inte rsections. At one point, Sumrall could see the taillights of Appellant’s vehicle reflect a stop

. When he approached another intersection, Sumrall discovered that Appellant’s vehicle struck a tree, but no one was in the vehicle. He unsuccessfully attempte d to locate Appellant. After the3 i ncident, Sumrall discovered that Appellant’s son shares the same name as Appellant but Sumrall denied knowing th is fact at the time of the alleged incident or ever meeting Appellant’s son

. Westover, a patrol serge ant with the Athens Police Departme nt, testified to obser ving two vehicles facing each other in the parking lot , approximately ten feet apart , on the ni ght of the
incident

. Westover heard the female in the white truck yelling for help and observed Appella nt in the SUV. He stated that he knew A ppellant and had no “doubt” that it was Appellant in the
SUV

. He ordered Appellant to turn off and exit his veh icle , but Appellant looked at the officers , reversed , and exited the parking lot. After Sumrall followe d A ppellant, Westover spoke to Kassandra who identified Appellant as the person in the SUV

. She told Westover that Appellant began chasing her vehicle and she drove to the parking lot of the police department , believin g that he would not follow her into t he parking lot. Westover knew Appellant had a son by the same name, but he had never seen the son

. Kassandra testified that on the date of the inciden t, she was driving a white truck when
she noticed a SUV follow ing he r. She identified the vehicle as on e t hat Appellant’s son dr ove and stated that Appellant’s son was her former boyfriend. However, Kassandra stated that she could not identify the driver of the SUV because of the vehicle ’s tinted windows

. After driving
into t he police department parking l ot, Ka ssandra began blowing her horn and screaming. She stated that two police officers came out and the SUV left

. She told the officer that the drive r of
the SUV was “Paul Jackson,” but did not state that it was Appellant

. Ac cording to Kassandra,
she n ever s aw the driver of the SUV

. However, she informed Appellant’s attorney that Appellant’s son was the driver of the SUV

. Katina Jackson, Appellant’ s sister, testified that she and Appellant live together. She
stated that on t he night of the incident, Appel lant was home when she arrived at approximately
8:30 p.m. She believed he was at home all night because he was there when she woke up the next

mor ning. Katina stated that Appellant drives a white SUV , suffers from gout, uses a cane, and

cannot run. She s tated that on the night of the incident, Appellant’s foot was swollen. She did not believe that he would have been able to “jump out of a vehicle and run away.” Katina stated
that the wreck occurred a bl ock from her house and that Appellant could w alk a block with his

cane. A fter the hearing, the trial court found the allegation that Appellant committed the offense of evading arrest or detention to be “true

. ” The trial court granted the State’s motion to4 revoke on the possession of a controlled s ubstan ce, namely cocaine, in a n amount of less than

one gram , and assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement in a state jail facil i ty for two
year s and a $500.00 fine

. Further, the trial cour t granted the State ’ s motion to adjudicate Appellant ’ s guilt, adjudicated Appe llant “guilty” of aggravated assault with a dead ly weapon,
and assessed his punishment at fifteen years of imprisonment and a $500.00 fine

. The trial court
ordered that the sentences run concur rently. T h ese appeal s followe d

.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V
. C ALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed brief s in compliance with Anders and Gainous , stating that s he diligently reviewed the appel late record s and is of the opinion that the record s reflect n o reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal in each case can be predicated.
From our re view of counsel’s brief s , it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the fac ts in th ese case s

. In compliance with Anders , Gaino us , and H igh v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s brief s present a chronological summa tion o f the procedural history of each case, and further state that counsel is unable to ra ise any arguable issues for appeal in either case

. 3 We have reviewed the record s for reversible error and have found none.
See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 82 6

- 27 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

C ONCLUSION As required by Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel moved for le ave to withdraw in both cases

. See also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (ori g. pro ceeding). We carried the motion s for
consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s
counsel’s motion s for leave to withdraw are hereby granted , all pending motions are overruled
as moot, and the trial court’s judgment s are affirmed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2. Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment s t o Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review in each case

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4; In re S chulma n , 22 S.W.3d at 411

3 In compliance with Kelly v. State , App ellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief s , notified Appellant of h er motion s to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right t o file a pro se response in each case , and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record s

. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief s

. The time for fi ling

s uch brief s ha s expired and no pro se brief s ha ve been filed.5 n.35. Sh ould Appellant wish to seek further review of th ese case s by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he mu st either reta in an attorney to file petition s for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discreti onary review in these cases

. See I n re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition s for discretionary review must be filed within thir ty days from the date of either this opinion or, if motion s for rehearing are filed, the date that the last timely

mo tion f or rehearing is overruled by this court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 68.2(a). Any petition s for discretionary review must be filed with the T exas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3. Any petition s for discretionary review should comply wi th the requirements of Rule
68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4; In re Schulman , 252
S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion d elivered September 9 , 2020. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGM ENT

SEPTEMBER 2 , 2020

NO. 12

- 19

- 00306

- CR

PAUL RAY JACKSON, SR. , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 173rd District Court
of He nders on Cou nty, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR16

- 0922

- 173 )

THIS CA USE came to be heard on the appellate record and br ief fil ed h erein,
and the same being considered, it i s the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.
It i s therefo re ORDERED, AD JUDGE D and DECREED that th e jud gment of
the cou r t below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be cert ifie d to the c o urt below
for observance.

By per curiam opinion

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

## COURT OF APPE ALS

TWELFT H COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGM ENT

SEPTEMBER 2 , 2020

NO. 12

- 19

- 0030 7

- CR

PAUL RAY JACKSON , SR

. , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
Appeal from the 173rd District Court of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR1 8

- 0 704

- 173 )

THIS CA USE c ame to be heard on the appellate record and br ief fil ed herein,
and the same being considered, it i s the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.
It i s therefo re ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that th e jud gment of
the cou r t below be i n all things affirmed , and that this decision be cert ified to the c o urt below
for observance.

By per curiam opinion

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