COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-14-00151-CR
JASON EUGENE JURY APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. CR12575
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
A jury convicted Appellant Jason Eugene Jury of assault family violence
with a prior conviction for assault family violence and assessed his punishment at
imprisonment for eight years in the penitentiary. Tex. Pen. Code Ann.
§ 22.01(b)(2)(A), (f)(1) (West Supp. 2014).
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel avers that in his
professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet
the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation
of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Appointed counsel informed Appellant of
his right to file a pro se brief or response and indicated he sent Appellant a copy
of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Appellant filed a pro se motion to
extend time to file his pro se brief or response in which he acknowledged receipt
of the appellate record. This court granted Appellant’s pro se motion and
extended the time to file his pro se brief or response to December 10, 2014.
Appellant never filed a pro se brief or response or any additional motion to
extend time to file a pro se brief or response. The State did not file a response.
On August 3, 2015, this court notified the parties that the case was being
submitted on August 24, 2015. As of the date of this opinion, Appellant has not
filed a pro se brief or response or any additional motion to extend time to file a
pro se brief or response.
Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on
the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this
court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State,
904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may
2
we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–
83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with
counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in
the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d
684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/s/ Anne Gardner
ANNE GARDNER
JUSTICE
PANEL: GARDNER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 25, 2015
3