Tikie Jones v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Opinion issued May 21, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-22-00585-CR
NO. 01-22-00586-CR
———————————
TIKIE JONES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 184th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case Nos. 1682295 and 1682296
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After a jury trial, appellant Tikie Jones was convicted in trial court cause
number 1682295 of the second-degree offense of aggravated assault of a family
member (dating relationship) and in trial court cause number 1682296 of the first-
degree offense of serious bodily injury of a child under 15 years of age . See TEX.
PENAL CODE § 22.02(a),(b), 22.04(a); TEX. FAM. CODE § 71.0021(a). Jones was
sentenced to four years’ confinement in the Institutions Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice for the aggravated assault offense and nine years’
confinement in the Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
for the injury to a child offense, with the sentences to run concurrently.
On appeal, Jones’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, along with
a brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is without
merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal
authority. 386 U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is
unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2006, no pet.).
Counsel advised Jones of her right to access the record and provided her with
a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Jones of her right
to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Jones requested access to the record
and filed a pro se response to counsel’s briefs in each cause.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds
2
for review, and the appeals are frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing
that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of
proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763,
767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable
grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines
whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that an
appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by
filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See
Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.1 Attorney Allen C. Isbell must immediately send Jones the required notice
and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Hightower.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
1
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and that she may, on her own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
3