Opinion filed February 23 , 202 3



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _

_____ 

### No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 1 86

- C R

_____ __ ____ 

### JORDAN MARSHALL SPRAGGINS , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 350 th District Court Taylo r County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. 14756

- D

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Jordan Marshall Spraggins , Appellant, entered a n open plea of guilty to the
offense of murder , and the jury, as instructed, found Appellant guilty

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 19 .02( b) ( 2 ) (West 2019 ). Prior to voir dire, t he trial court admonished Appellant regarding his guilty plea and accepted Appellant’s plea and judicial confession

. After the jury was i mpaneled and sworn , Appellant pled guilty before the jury , and the parties then presented a substantial amount of evidence regarding the offense and punishment. The jury then assessed Appellant’s2 punishment at imprisonment f or a term of fifty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Depar tment of Criminal Justice and the trial court sentence him accordingly

. We affirm

. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that this appeal is frivolous and without merit . Counsel has provided A ppellant with a copy
of t he brief , a copy of the motion to withdraw, and a copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record

. Counsel advised A ppellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief . Counsel also advised Appellant of h is right to
fil e a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68. Court

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Te x. Crim. App. 1991)

. Appellant filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. We have reviewed Appellant’s Anders response

. In add ressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following3 the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have indepe ndently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.

PER CURIAM

February 23 , 202 3 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J., Trotter, J., and W ill iams , J.

1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.