Court Opinion

ID: 9367627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 15:11:00.235677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:01.092154
License: Public Domain

In The
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                   No. 06-22-00088-CR

          JAMES MICHAEL JONES, Appellant

                            V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

          On Appeal from the 8th District Court
               Franklin County, Texas
                Trial Court No. F9727

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
       Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

           James Michael Jones entered an open plea of guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly

weapon,1 and after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found Jones guilty and sentenced him to

thirty years’ imprisonment.2 Jones appeals the judgment revoking his community supervision.

           Jones’s appellate counsel filed a brief that outlined the procedural history of the case,

provided a detailed summary of the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings, and

stated that counsel found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal.                      Counsel provided a

professional evaluation of the record and demonstrated why there are no arguable grounds to be

advanced, as required by law. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State,

813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex.

Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

           Jones’s counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this

appeal and provided Jones with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw. Counsel

informed Jones of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response; counsel further

provided Jones with a pro se motion for access to the appellate record, which Jones signed and

filed. On September 27, 2022, this Court mailed a copy of the appellate record to Jones and

notified him that his pro se brief was due on November 14, 2022. On November 18, 2022, we

granted Jones’s pro se motion for extension of time to file his response and extended his time to

1
    See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (Supp.).
2
 The trial court found true the State’s allegation that Jones had been previously conviction of a felony. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(b).
                                                        2
file his pro se response to December 14, 2022. By letter dated January 3, 2023, we notified

Jones that the case would be submitted on briefs on January 24, 2023. Jones did not file a pro se

response.

         We reviewed the entire appellate record and independently determined that no error

exists. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We affirm the

judgment of the trial court.3

                                                           Charles van Cleef
                                                           Justice

Date Submitted:            January 24, 2023
Date Decided:              February 1, 2023

Do Not Publish

3
 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s
request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute
counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se
petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from
either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court,
see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP.
P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see
TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
                                                          3