Jakari Stoner v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-16-00394-CR ____________________ JAKARI STONER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 12-15437 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Jakari Stoner was indicted for indecency with a child, a seconddegree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(a)(1), (d) (West 2011). Stoner pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Stoner guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Stoner on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Stoner’s unadjudicated community supervision. Stoner pleaded “true” to two of the alleged violations of the terms of 1 his community supervision. The trial court found that Stoner violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Stoner guilty of indecency with a child, and assessed punishment at fifteen years of confinement. Stoner then filed this appeal. Stoner’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Stoner filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) “that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error”; or (2) “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.” Id. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk’s records and the reporter’s record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary 2 to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1 AFFIRMED. ______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on August 24, 2017 Opinion Delivered September 27, 2017 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3
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.
