John Andy Jones v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 183rd District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 20, 2010. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-09-00768-CR ____________ JOHN ANDY JONES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 183rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1109177 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted appellant of murder and sentenced him to confinement for life in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a fine of $10,000. Appellant filed a notice of appeal. Appellant s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant s request, the record was provided to him. On May 5, 2010, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel s brief. We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel s brief, and appellant s response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. We do not address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Brown, Sullivan, and Christopher. Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
