Court Opinion

ID: 9916655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 07:08:05.977361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:42.533095
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Opinion Filed January 4, 2024

                                      In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-22-00523-CR

                      JERRY WAYNE FORD, Appellant
                                  V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

               On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. F20-76542

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
             Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Breedlove
                          Opinion by Justice Breedlove
      We withdrew our prior opinion in this case by order dated December 12, 2023.

This is now the opinion of the Court. Jerry Wayne Ford was indicted for murder.

The jury found appellant guilty, and the court assessed his punishment at life

imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which

she concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). She also filed an accompanying motion to

withdraw as appointed counsel.
        Appellant was provided a complete record and advised of his rights to file a

pro se response. Appellant filed a pro se response.1

        The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives

an Anders brief and a pro se response, the reviewing court has two choices. Bledsoe

v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). After conducting an

independent examination of the record, “[the appellate court] may determine that the

appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the

record and finds no reversible error[.] Or, it may determine 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.” Id. at 826–27 (internal citations omitted). The

appellate court does not address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or

in a pro se response when it has determined there are no arguable grounds for review.

Id. at 827.

        We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, including

counsel’s Anders brief2 and the issues raised in appellant’s pro se response. We

    1
      Appellant’s response does not address counsel’s Anders brief or motion to withdraw but instead
argues in four issues that trial counsel was ineffective.
    2
      Although in her brief, counsel did not discuss the issue of jury selection, the one sustained State’s
objection, or appellant’s boilerplate motion for new trial which was overruled by operation of law, our
independent review of those issues shows no arguable grounds for review. We note the better practice
would be for counsel to address these issues in the Anders brief. Nevertheless, after conducting a review
of the entire record, we agree with counsel that there are no arguable issues to raise on appeal, and thus,
any appeal would be frivolous. Although the brief fails to discuss certain areas recommended by this Court
to comply with uniform Anders’ requirements, we are convinced counsel thoroughly and conscientiously
reviewed the record for potential issues and provided a roadmap for this Court’s review of the record to
assure counsel made the legally correct determination that the appeal is frivolous. See In re Schulman, 252

                                                   –2–
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds

for review, and, therefore, the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at

744 (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) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable

grounds for appeal exist).

       We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments

as modified.

                                                   /Maricela Breedlove/
220523f.u05                                        MARICELA BREEDLOVE
Do Not Publish                                     JUSTICE
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Under these circumstances, we conclude counsel substantially
complied with her obligations under Anders.
                                               –3–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

JERRY WAYNE FORD, Appellant                  On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial
                                             District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-00523-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. F20-76542.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
                                             and Reichek participating.

    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 4th day of January, 2024.

                                       –4–