Court Opinion

ID: 9925501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-20 07:11:07.492731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:50.760382
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed January 18, 2024

                                      In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                    __________

                  Nos. 11-22-00285-CR & 11-22-00286-CR
                                    __________

                  ISAAC JERALD JACKSON, Appellant

                                         V.

                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 244th District Court
                            Ector County, Texas
            Trial Court Cause Nos. C-22-0520-CR & C-22-0521-CR

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Appellant, Isaac Jerald Jackson, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a first-
degree felony, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, a third-degree felony.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 (West 2019), § 46.04 (West Supp. 2023). The
jury found an enhancement allegation to be “true” and assessed Appellant’s
punishment at eighty years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice and a $7,500 fine for the aggravated-robbery
offense, and ten years’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine for the unlawful-possession-
of-a-firearm offense. See id. § 12.42(b). The trial court sentenced him accordingly.
      Appellant pled guilty before the jury to unlawfully possessing a firearm as a
felon, and not guilty to the charge of aggravated robbery. At the guilt/innocence
phase of trial, the State called five witnesses, including Liying Chen, who owned
and worked at the Rose Garden Spa where Appellant entered on March 21, 2022
with a firearm and demanded money. The jury saw surveillance footage that showed
Appellant striking, pistol whipping, and stomping on Chen while dragging her
around the salon. The State presented photographs taken immediately after the
robbery of Chen’s bloody, swollen face and body; testimony was also presented that
Appellant’s fingerprints and palm prints were found at the scene.
      Appellant testified that he was “out of [his] mind on Xanax” when he entered
the Rose Garden Spa, and admitted that he “brutalized [Chen] because [his]
judgment was clouded.” He likewise agreed that he hit Chen with a firearm, but
“was just trying to get [his] money back.” The jury found him guilty of both
offenses, and the State called four witnesses at the punishment phase, including two
victims of a home burglary that Appellant committed in 2012. Appellant testified
during the punishment phase, and called seven additional witnesses.
      Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his
right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief and of his right to

                                          2
file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Therefore, 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 has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following
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
       Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

                                                     W. STACY TROTTER
                                                     JUSTICE

January 18, 2024
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 the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to
Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

                                                 3