Opinion
05-20-01106-CR
06-01-2022
JEROME ANTWONE SMITH, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b)
On Appeal from the 354th District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 32030
Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Garcia
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE
In December 2017, Jerome Antwone Smith pleaded guilty to third-degree felony assault/family violence, impeding breathing or circulation and, pursuant to a plea bargain, was placed on two years' deferred adjudication community supervision.
In March 2019, the trial court amended appellant's conditions of community supervision to require him to serve ninety days in county jail and to extend his community supervision by two years. Fourteen months later, in May 2020, the State filed an amended motion to revoke and proceed to adjudication of guilt, alleging eight violations of community supervision. Specifically, the State alleged that appellant committed new offenses of evading arrest, assault/family violence, and assault/bodily injury; failed to pay fees and court costs; failed to reimburse Hunt County for urinalysis testing; and failed to perform his community service.
At a hearing in November 2020, appellant pleaded true to all of the allegations contained in the motion, and the trial court accepted his pleas and adjudicated appellant guilty on the original offense. The case then proceeded to a punishment hearing at which appellant's probation officer and appellant testified. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court sentenced appellant to ten years in prison.
On appeal, appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. He also filed an accompanying motion to withdraw as appointed counsel.
When an appellate court receives an Anders brief asserting no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by conducting our own review of the record. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (emphasizing court, and not appointed counsel, determines whether case is "frivolous" after full examination of proceedings); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (quoting Anders). If we conclude, after conducting an independent review, that "appellate counsel has exercised professional diligence in assaying the record for error" and agree the appeal is frivolous, we should grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
The brief before us meets the requirements of Anders. It presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there were no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Appellant was provided a complete record and advised of his rights to file a pro se response. He did not file a response.
We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court's duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
We grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment.
JUDGMENT
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.