IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-17-00107-CR
JOHN TREMAINE JONES,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 66th District Court
Hill County, Texas
Trial Court No. 39,241
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a trial before the jury, John Tremaine Jones was convicted of two offenses:
aggravated robbery (Count One) and evading arrest or detention with a vehicle (Count
Two). See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 29.03(a)(2); 38.04(b)(2)(A) (West 2011). He was
sentenced to 75 years and 20 years, respectively, in prison with fines of $10,000 in each
case. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Jones’s appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in
support of the motion to withdraw in each case, asserting that the appeals present no
issues of arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d
493 (1967). Counsel advised Jones that counsel had filed the motion and brief pursuant
to Anders and provided Jones a copy of the record, advised Jones of his right to review
the record, and advised Jones of his right to submit a response on his own behalf. Jones
submitted a response. The State submitted a reply to Jones’s response.
Counsel asserts in the Anders brief that counsel has made a thorough review of the
entire record, including the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, the trial
court’s denial of Jones’s motion for continuance for new counsel, trial counsel’s
effectiveness in representation, the propriety of the accomplice testimony, and the trial
court’s denial of the motion for new trial. After the review, counsel has concluded there
is no non-frivolous issue to raise in this appeal. Counsel's brief evidences a professional
evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties
required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,
812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008).
In his response to counsel’s Anders brief, Jones contends his co-defendant’s
testimony did not comply with the accomplice witness rule; the DNA evidence was
insufficient to the support Jones’s conviction for aggravated robbery; the trial court
deprived Jones of a fair trial by not inquiring why Jones wanted new counsel; the jury
should have been given a lesser-included offense instruction; and Jones was denied due
Jones v. State Page 2
process when a proper investigation of the aggravated robbery was not conducted. In a
supplemental response, Jones contends a lost exhibit is critical to a proper appeal, and its
loss should result in a new trial. The record does not support Jones’s contentions.
Upon the filing of an Anders brief, as the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty
to independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining
that an appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,
511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably
persuade the court." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L.
Ed. 2d 440 (1988).
Having carefully reviewed the entire record, the Anders brief, and Jones’s
response, we have determined that this appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s Judgment of
Conviction by Jury (Count One) signed on February 8, 2017 and Judgment of Conviction
by Jury (Count Two) signed on February 8, 2017.
Should Jones wish 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 must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. No substitute counsel will
be appointed. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from
the date of this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en
banc reconsideration has been overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any
Jones v. State Page 3
petition and all copies of the petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk
of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. (Tex. Crim. App. 1997, amended
eff. Sept. 1, 2011). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the
requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P.
68.4. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Jones is granted, and
counsel is discharged from representing Jones. Notwithstanding counsel’s discharge,
counsel must send Jones a copy of our decision, notify him of his right to file a pro se
petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's
compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In
re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed August 1, 2018
Do not publish
[CRPM]
Jones v. State Page 4