Court Opinion

ID: 3101497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:13:33.620216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:40:56.313799
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued July 1, 2014

                                    In The
                              Court of Appeals
                                   For The
                        First District of Texas

                              NO. 01-12-01041-CR
                                  ____________

               ABRAHAM JHAMELL JACKSON, Appellant

                                       V.

                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                  On Appeal from the 176th District Court
                          Harris County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. 1312812

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

     Appellant, Abraham Jhamell Jackson, pleaded guilty to the offense of

aggravated robbery, with no agreed recommendation from the State regarding
punishment. The trial court judge deferred adjudication and appellant was placed

on community supervision for 5 years. Following a hearing on State’s Petition for

Revocation of Probated Sentence on alleged violations of probation, the trial court

revoked appellant’s probation and sentenced him to 15 years with the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice.

      Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,

along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and

therefore the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

      Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal

authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she has

thoroughly reviewed the record and that she is unable to advance any grounds of

error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell

v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

      Counsel has informed us that she has delivered a copy of the brief to

appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a

                                          2
response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Appellant has not filed a response.

      We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable

grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S.

at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—

determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly

frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)

(explaining that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are “arguable

grounds” for review); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist);

Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds

exist by reviewing entire record). An appellant may challenge a holding that there

are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in

the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

      We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.1   Attorney Patti Sedita must immediately send the notice required by

1
      Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
      and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
      Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App.
      1997).
                                           3
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the

Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

                                  PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.

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

                                           4