TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-18-00562-CR
Joshua Vardell, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY, 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 13,981, HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER DARROW DUGGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In 2010, Joshua Vardell was indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
See Tex. Penal Code § 22.02 (setting out elements of offense of aggravated assault and explaining
that offense is, in general, second-degree felony). Per a plea-bargain agreement, Vardell pleaded
guilty to the allegations in the indictment. The district court placed Vardell on community
supervision for ten years, deferring an adjudication of guilt. Between 2012 and 2017, the State filed
multiple motions to revoke Vardell’s community supervision and adjudicate his guilt, but the district
court elected to continue Vardell on community supervision after modifying the terms and conditions
of his community supervision. In March 2018, the State filed another motion to revoke Vardell’s
community supervision and to adjudicate his guilt. In its motion, the State alleged that Vardell
violated his community supervision by failing (1) to report “to the Community Supervision and
Corrections Office” as directed; (2) to remain within Bastrop County, except as permitted by
Vardell’s community supervision and corrections officer; (3) to pay his supervisory fees, courts
costs, and the fine imposed when he was placed on community supervision; and (4) to complete
inpatient service treatment at Serenity Star Recovery. Vardell pleaded true to all of the alleged
violations, and he and four other witnesses testified at the hearing. The district court rendered
judgment revoking Vardell’s community supervision, adjudicating his guilt, and assessing his
punishment at eight years’ imprisonment. See id. § 12.33 (listing permissible punishment range for
second-degree felonies). Shortly thereafter, Vardell was appointed appellate counsel and appealed
the district court’s judgment of adjudication.
Vardell’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported
by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the
requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and
demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967);
Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
81-82 (1988) (explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both
that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . .
frivolous”). Vardell’s counsel has represented to the Court that she provided copies of the motion
and brief to Vardell; advised Vardell of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief,
and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided
Vardell with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address
of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Vardell
2
subsequently filled a pro se brief alleging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that
the punishment assessed by the district court was excessive.
We have independently reviewed the record and Vardell’s pro se brief and have found
nothing that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d
at 766. We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw and affirm the district court’s judgment revoking Vardell’s community
supervision and adjudicating his guilt.
__________________________________________
Thomas J. Baker, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana
Affirmed
Filed: February 21, 2019
Do Not Publish
3