NOS. 12-24-00128-CR

 12-24-00129-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JAZMYN MICA HALL, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 241ST 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Jazmyn Mica Hall appeals following the revocation of her deferred adjudication 

community supervision in two cases. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in 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 affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and 

pleaded “guilty.” Appellant also was charged by a separate indictment with obstruction or 

retaliation and pleaded “guilty” to that charge as well. In each case, the trial court deferred finding 

Appellant “guilty” and placed her on community supervision for ten years for aggravated assault 

and eight years for obstruction or retaliation. 

Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision and 

to adjudicate guilt in each case, alleging that Appellant violated certain terms and conditions 

thereof. Specifically, the State contended that Appellant violated the terms of her community 
2

supervision, in pertinent part, because she (1) failed to abide by the law and committed the criminal 

offense of assault on a family or household member by impeding breathing, (2) failed to abide by 

the condition prohibiting her possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages, and (3) failed to 

satisfactorily perform Community Service Restitution as directed.

A hearing was conducted on the State’s motion, at which Appellant pleaded “true” to all 

of the allegations in the State’s motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that 

Appellant violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision as alleged in the State’s 

motion. Thereafter, it revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated her “guilty” of 

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and obstruction or retaliation, and sentenced her to 

imprisonment for twenty years for each offense. This appeal followed. 

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed briefs in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. 

State. Appellant’s counsel states that he diligently reviewed the appellate records in each case and 

is of the opinion that the records reflect no reversible error and that there is no error upon which 

either appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well-acquainted with the facts in these 

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

[Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s briefs present a chronological summation of the procedural history 

of the cases and further state that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for 

appeal in either case.1

 We likewise have reviewed the records in these cases for reversible error 

and found none.

CONCLUSION

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s 

counsel moved for leave to withdraw in each case. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 

407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motions for consideration with the 

1 In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the briefs, notified 

Appellant of his motions to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of her right to file pro se responses, and took 

concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate records. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file her own briefs. The time for filing such briefs has expired 

and no pro se briefs have been filed.
3

merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motions 

for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

As a result of our disposition of these cases, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five 

days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise 

her of her 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 review of these cases by the 

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she either must retain an attorney to file a petition for 

discretionary review on her behalf or she must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any 

petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion 

or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with 

the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

408 n.22.

Opinion delivered September 30, 2024.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 30, 2024

NO. 12-24-00128-CR

JAZMYN MICA HALL,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-0460-21)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below 

for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 30, 2024

NO. 12-24-00129-CR

JAZMYN MICA HALL,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-0461-21)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below 

for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.