Tye Kobi Jackson-Wells v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-23-00023-CR
NO. 09-23-00024-CR
__________________
TYE KOBI JACKSON-WELLS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 21-38087 and 21-38089
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Tye Kobi Jackson-Wells, the defendant in trial court cause numbers
21-38087 and 21-38089, agreed to plead guilty in each case under plea
agreements he made with the State. In cause number 21-38087, Jackson-
Wells pleaded guilty to burglarizing a habitation, a second-degree
1
felony. 1 In cause number 21-38089, Jackson-Wells pleaded guilty to theft,
a state-jail felony. 2 In exchange for his pleas, the State recommended
that the trial court defer the adjudication of his guilt and place Jackson-
Wells on community supervision.
In carrying out the plea agreement, the trial court found the
evidence sufficient to find Jackson-Wells guilty of the offense, deferred
the adjudication of his guilt, and signed and order placing Jackson-Wells
on community supervision. In cause number 21-38087 the trial court
ordered Jackson-Wells placed on community supervision for ten years,
while in cause number 21-38089 the trial court placed him on community
supervision for five years.
Months later, the State moved to revoke the deferred-adjudication
orders. In the motions to revoke, the State alleged that Jackson-Wells
violated four conditions of his community supervision. Following the
hearing the court conducted on the motions, the trial court found the
allegations to be true. Rather than revoking the deferred-adjudication
orders, however, the trial court amended the terms of its community
1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02.
2See id. § 31.03.
2
supervision orders and required Jackson-Wells to serve 90-days upfront
jail-time and to complete a one-year residential treatment program.
Less than two months later, the State filed new motions asking the
trial court to revoke its decision to defer the adjudication of Jackson-
Wells’ guilt in the cases. In these motions, the State alleged that Jackson-
Wells violated two of the conditions of the trial court’s community-
supervision orders while he was jailed in the Jefferson County
Correctional Facility.
During the hearing on the State’s motions, Jackson-Wells pleaded
“true” to one of the allegations in the State’s motion and not true to the
other. When the evidentiary hearing on the State’s motions concluded,
and based on the evidence the trial court heard during the hearing to
support the State’s motion, the trial court (1) revoked its community-
supervision orders, (2) pronounced Jackson-Wells guilty and sentenced
him to twenty years in prison in trial court cause number 21-38087 on
his conviction for burglarizing a habitation, and (3) pronounced Jackson-
3
Wells guilty and sentenced him to two years’ in prison in trial court cause
number 21-38089 on his conviction for theft. 3
After Jackson-Wells filed notices of appeal, the trial court appointed
an attorney to represent him in his appeals. The attorney discharged his
responsibilities to Jackson-Wells by filing an Anders brief. 4
In the brief, Jackson-Wells’ attorney represents there are no
arguable errors that he can argue that would lead to the Court’s reversing
the trial court’s judgments in these two appeals. 5 In our opinion, the brief
the attorney filed on Jackson-Wells’ behalf provides a professional
evaluation of the record. In the brief, Jackson-Wells’ attorney explains
why, under the records in these appeals, no arguable issues exist to
reverse the trial court’s judgments. 6 Subsequently, the attorney
appointed to represent Jackson-Wells filed motions to withdraw, and he
attached letters to his motions addressed to Jackson-Wells. They state
3The trial court ordered Jackson-Wells’ sentences in both cases to
run concurrently. See id. § 12.35 (providing punishment range of 180
days to two years in jail for state-jail felonies), id. § 12.33 (providing
punishment range of two to twenty years in prison for second-degree
felonies).
4See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
5See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
6See id.4
the attorney sent Jackson-Wells a copy of the brief and the records in
these appeals.
The Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals also notified Jackson-
Wells, by letter, of his right to file a pro se brief or response on or before
May 3, 2022. Thereafter, Jackson-Wells filed a pro se response. In it,
Jackson-Wells argues he shouldn’t have received a twenty-year-sentence
in his case for burglarizing a habitation because the offense was
committed when he “was a juvenile.” 7
When an appellate court receives an Anders brief and a later-filed
pro se response, it has two choices. 8 “It may determine that the appeal is
wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the
record and finds no reversible error. (citation omitted) Or, it may
7The record includes an order signed by the presiding judge of the
Jefferson County District Court who, in July 2021, was responsible for
handling juvenile proceedings in Jefferson County. In the July 2021
order, the juvenile court waived its right to exercise jurisdiction over
Jackson-Wells for the offense alleging that Jackson-Wells burglarized a
habitation in February 2021 and for the offense alleging that he
committed felony theft in March 2021. The juvenile court ordered
Jackson-Wells “transferred to a Criminal District Court of Jefferson
County, Texas for Criminal Proceedings to be dealt with as an adult in
accordance with the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.”
8See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005) (cleaned up).
5
determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause
to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the
issues.” 9
We have independently examined the records in Jackson-Wells’
appeals to determine whether the attorney assigned to represent him has
a non-frivolous argument that would support either appeal. 10 After
reviewing the clerk’s records, the reporter’s records, and the attorney’s
brief, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable grounds exist
to support the appeals. Thus, it follows the appeals are frivolous. 11 For
that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another
attorney to re-brief them. 12
9Id.
10Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at
744).
11See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 (“Due to the nature of Anders
briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in
the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none,
the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 47.1.”).
12See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Jackson-Wells may challenge our decision in the cases by filing petitions
for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
6
The trial court’s judgments in cause numbers 21-38087 and 21-
38089 are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on August 10, 2023
Opinion Delivered August 16, 2023
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
7