Opinion filed February 23, 2023

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-22-00186-CR

___________

JORDAN MARSHALL SPRAGGINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 350th District Court

Taylor 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 an open plea of guilty to the

offense of murder, and the jury, as instructed, found Appellant guilty. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b)(2) (West 2019). Prior to voir dire, the trial court

admonished Appellant regarding his guilty plea and accepted Appellant’s plea and 

judicial confession. After the jury was impaneled 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’s
2

punishment at imprisonment for a term of fifty years in the Institutional Division of 

the Texas Department 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 Appellant with a copy 

of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, and a copy of the clerk’s record and 

the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record 

and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to 

file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas 

Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1991). 

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

Appellant’s Anders response. In addressing 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). Following 
3

the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently 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, 2023

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, 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.