Jeremiah Jermaine Palmer v. The State of Texas Appeal from 260th District Court of Orange County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ___________________ NO. 09-17-00055-CR ___________________ JEREMIAH JERMAINE PALMER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 260th District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. D150021-R __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In this appeal, Jeremiah Jermaine Palmer’s appellate counsel filed a brief in which she contends that no arguable grounds can be advanced to support a decision reversing Palmer’s conviction for robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02 (West 2011). The record shows that in January 2015, a grand jury charged Palmer with committing an aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 2011). 1 Based on a plea agreement that he made with the State, Palmer subsequently agreed to plead guilty to the lesser included offense of robbery; in return, the State agreed that it would make no recommendation regarding Palmer’s punishment. One month after Palmer pleaded guilty to the charge of robbery, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court pronounced that Palmer was to serve a fifteen year sentence and pay a $10,000 fine. After the trial court sentenced Palmer, he filed an appeal. In Palmer’s appeal, Palmer’s counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Palmer’s counsel concludes that any further efforts to pursue an appeal would be frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). After receiving Palmer’s Anders brief, we granted an extension of time to allow Palmer to file a pro se response. However, no response was filed. After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief filed by Palmer’s counsel, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that an appeal on the current record would be frivolous. Therefore, it is not necessary that we appoint new counsel to rebrief Palmer’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring the court of appeals to appoint other counsel only if it determines that there were arguable grounds for the appeal). Given our conclusion that no 2 arguable grounds exist to support Palmer’s appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.1 AFFIRMED. ______________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on December 19, 2017 Opinion Delivered December 20, 2017 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 Palmer may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. 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.
