eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2021-10

Franklin Calvin Jones v. the State of Texas ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                                   IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-21-00090-CR
FRANKLIN CALVIN JONES,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 52nd District Court
Coryell County, Texas
Trial Court No. 20-26069
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Franklin Jones entered a plea of guilty to the offense of unauthorized use of a
motor vehicle. On July 20, 2020, the trial court convicted Jones of the offense and assessed
punishment at twenty-four months confinement in a state jail facility. The trial court
suspended imposition of the sentence and placed Jones on community supervision for
four years. On December 10, 2020, the State filed a motion to revoke Jones’s community
supervision, and on February 9, 2021, the State filed an amended motion to revoke
community supervision. The amended motion alleged Jones violated the conditions of
his community supervision by committing the offense of theft of property. After a
hearing, the trial court found the allegation to be true, revoked Jones’s community
supervision, and sentenced Jones to twenty-four months confinement in a state jail
facility. We affirm.
Jones’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in
support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and
that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967).
Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance
with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the
duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. at 744
    ; High v.
State,
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State,
    436 S.W.3d 313
    ,
319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman,
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 407 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the
proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. at 744
    ; see Penson v. Ohio,
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988); accord Stafford v. State,
    813 S.W.2d 503
    ,
509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when
it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals,
    486 U.S. 429
    , 439 n. 10 (1988).
After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be
Jones v. State                                                                           Page 2
wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Jones is granted.
STEVE SMITH
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Affirmed; motion granted
Opinion delivered and filed October 6, 2021
Do not publish
[CR25]
Jones v. State                                                                  Page 3