AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed June 1, 2022
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-20-01106-CR
JEROME ANTWONE SMITH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 354th District Court
Hunt County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 32030
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Reichek
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,
2
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.
/Amanda L. Reichek/
AMANDA L. REICHEK
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
201106F.U05
3
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JEROME ANTWONE SMITH, On Appeal from the 354th District
Appellant Court, Hunt County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 32030.
No. 05-20-01106-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice
Reichek; Justices Molberg and
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Garcia participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered June 1, 2022
4