Court Opinion

ID: 9375168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 07:10:00.128429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.456033
License: Public Domain

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

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      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
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

                                          2
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.

                                                    3