Opinion
06-23-00176-CR
03-20-2024
JAKE ADAM BLOUNT, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish
Submitted: February 8, 2024
On Appeal from the 8th District Court Hopkins County, Texas Trial Court No. 2229094.
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice
Jake Adam Blount pled guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon/family violence. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02 (Supp.). After he pled true to the State's habitual-offender allegations, the trial court placed Blount on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years. The terms and conditions of Blount's deferred adjudication community supervision required him to successfully complete treatment in a Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility (SAFPF) and abstain from using alcohol or illegal drugs. Upon Blount's release from the SAFPF, he was required to participate in a drug or alcohol abuse continuum of care treatment plan, abiding by all the treatment plan's rules and regulations until he was successfully discharged by the staff. The State moved to revoke Blount's community supervision and to proceed to an adjudication of his guilt because Blount failed to attend and complete the drug and alcohol abuse continuum of care treatment plan. Blount pled true to the State's allegation in its motion to adjudicate guilt and, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the State's motion. The trial court sentenced Blount to fifty years' confinement in prison, and he appeals.
Blount's attorney filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings. Since counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders v. California. 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). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
On December 6, 2023, counsel mailed to Blount copies of the brief, the motion to withdraw, and a motion for pro se access to the appellate record. Blount was informed of his rights to review the record and to file a pro se response. We informed Blount that his pro se brief was due on or before January 4, 2024. On January 18, we further notified Blount that the case would be submitted on February 8. Blount did not file a pro se response.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and Blount's pro se response and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court's judgment. See id.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
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, he 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.