Court Opinion

ID: 9556712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-18 07:11:09.931628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:51.320759
License: Public Domain

In The

                         Court of Appeals

              Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                        __________________

                        NO. 09-23-00023-CR
                        NO. 09-23-00024-CR
                        __________________

            TYE KOBI JACKSON-WELLS, Appellant

                                  V.

                THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

            On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                    Jefferson County, Texas
             Trial Cause Nos. 21-38087 and 21-38089
__________________________________________________________________

                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

     Tye Kobi Jackson-Wells, the defendant in trial court cause numbers

21-38087 and 21-38089, agreed to plead guilty in each case under plea

agreements he made with the State. In cause number 21-38087, Jackson-

Wells pleaded guilty to burglarizing a habitation, a second-degree

                                  1
felony. 1 In cause number 21-38089, Jackson-Wells pleaded guilty to theft,

a state-jail felony. 2 In exchange for his pleas, the State recommended

that the trial court defer the adjudication of his guilt and place Jackson-

Wells on community supervision.

     In carrying out the plea agreement, the trial court found the

evidence sufficient to find Jackson-Wells guilty of the offense, deferred

the adjudication of his guilt, and signed and order placing Jackson-Wells

on community supervision. In cause number 21-38087 the trial court

ordered Jackson-Wells placed on community supervision for ten years,

while in cause number 21-38089 the trial court placed him on community

supervision for five years.

     Months later, the State moved to revoke the deferred-adjudication

orders. In the motions to revoke, the State alleged that Jackson-Wells

violated four conditions of his community supervision. Following the

hearing the court conducted on the motions, the trial court found the

allegations to be true. Rather than revoking the deferred-adjudication

orders, however, the trial court amended the terms of its community

     1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02.
     2See id. § 31.03.

                                    2
supervision orders and required Jackson-Wells to serve 90-days upfront

jail-time and to complete a one-year residential treatment program.

     Less than two months later, the State filed new motions asking the

trial court to revoke its decision to defer the adjudication of Jackson-

Wells’ guilt in the cases. In these motions, the State alleged that Jackson-

Wells violated two of the conditions of the trial court’s community-

supervision orders while he was jailed in the Jefferson County

Correctional Facility.

     During the hearing on the State’s motions, Jackson-Wells pleaded

“true” to one of the allegations in the State’s motion and not true to the

other. When the evidentiary hearing on the State’s motions concluded,

and based on the evidence the trial court heard during the hearing to

support the State’s motion, the trial court (1) revoked its community-

supervision orders, (2) pronounced Jackson-Wells guilty and sentenced

him to twenty years in prison in trial court cause number 21-38087 on

his conviction for burglarizing a habitation, and (3) pronounced Jackson-

                                     3
Wells guilty and sentenced him to two years’ in prison in trial court cause

number 21-38089 on his conviction for theft. 3

     After Jackson-Wells filed notices of appeal, the trial court appointed

an attorney to represent him in his appeals. The attorney discharged his

responsibilities to Jackson-Wells by filing an Anders brief. 4

     In the brief, Jackson-Wells’ attorney represents there are no

arguable errors that he can argue that would lead to the Court’s reversing

the trial court’s judgments in these two appeals. 5 In our opinion, the brief

the attorney filed on Jackson-Wells’ behalf provides a professional

evaluation of the record. In the brief, Jackson-Wells’ attorney explains

why, under the records in these appeals, no arguable issues exist to

reverse the trial court’s judgments. 6 Subsequently, the attorney

appointed to represent Jackson-Wells filed motions to withdraw, and he

attached letters to his motions addressed to Jackson-Wells. They state

     3The trial court ordered Jackson-Wells’ sentences in both cases to

run concurrently. See id. § 12.35 (providing punishment range of 180
days to two years in jail for state-jail felonies), id. § 12.33 (providing
punishment range of two to twenty years in prison for second-degree
felonies).
      4See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
      5See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
      6See id.

                                     4
the attorney sent Jackson-Wells a copy of the brief and the records in

these appeals.

      The Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals also notified Jackson-

Wells, by letter, of his right to file a pro se brief or response on or before

May 3, 2022. Thereafter, Jackson-Wells filed a pro se response. In it,

Jackson-Wells argues he shouldn’t have received a twenty-year-sentence

in his case for burglarizing a habitation because the offense was

committed when he “was a juvenile.” 7

      When an appellate court receives an Anders brief and a later-filed

pro se response, it has two choices. 8 “It may determine that the appeal is

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

record and finds no reversible error. (citation omitted) Or, it may

      7The record includes an order signed by the presiding judge of the

Jefferson County District Court who, in July 2021, was responsible for
handling juvenile proceedings in Jefferson County. In the July 2021
order, the juvenile court waived its right to exercise jurisdiction over
Jackson-Wells for the offense alleging that Jackson-Wells burglarized a
habitation in February 2021 and for the offense alleging that he
committed felony theft in March 2021. The juvenile court ordered
Jackson-Wells “transferred to a Criminal District Court of Jefferson
County, Texas for Criminal Proceedings to be dealt with as an adult in
accordance with the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.”
      8See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005) (cleaned up).
                                      5
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.” 9

        We have independently examined the records in Jackson-Wells’

appeals to determine whether the attorney assigned to represent him has

a non-frivolous argument that would support either appeal. 10 After

reviewing the clerk’s records, the reporter’s records, and the attorney’s

brief, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable grounds exist

to support the appeals. Thus, it follows the appeals are frivolous. 11 For

that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another

attorney to re-brief them. 12

        9Id.
        10Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at

744).
        11See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 (“Due to the nature of Anders

briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in
the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none,
the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 47.1.”).
      12See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Jackson-Wells may challenge our decision in the cases by filing petitions
for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                      6
     The trial court’s judgments in cause numbers 21-38087 and 21-

38089 are affirmed.

     AFFIRMED.

                                         _________________________
                                              HOLLIS HORTON
                                                   Justice

Submitted on August 10, 2023
Opinion Delivered August 16, 2023
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

                                 7