From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jordan v. State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Oct 24, 2013
NO. 03-13-00068-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 24, 2013)

Opinion

NO. 03-13-00068-CR

10-24-2013

Demarcus Kresean Jordan, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee


FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 65593, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Demarcus Kresean Jordan pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code § 29.03. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to support a finding of guilt, but deferred an adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. The State subsequently moved to revoke appellant's deferred adjudication community supervision and proceed to adjudicate his guilt based on thirteen alleged violations of the terms of his supervision. Appellant pleaded true to all thirteen violations of his community supervision. Following a punishment hearing, the trial court revoked appellant's community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 86-87 (1988).

Appellant received a copy of counsel's brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We have not received a pro se brief from appellant.

We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate counsel's brief, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous.

Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

____________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Field Affirmed Do Not Publish


Summaries of

Jordan v. State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Oct 24, 2013
NO. 03-13-00068-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 24, 2013)
Case details for

Jordan v. State

Case Details

Full title:Demarcus Kresean Jordan, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

Court:TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

Date published: Oct 24, 2013

Citations

NO. 03-13-00068-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 24, 2013)