Jonathan Geiger v. The State of Texas Appeal from 194th District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS JONATHAN GEIGER, § No. 08-15-00213-CR § Appellant, Appeal from the § V. 194th District Court § of Dallas County, Texas THE STATE OF TEXAS, § (TC# F09-56878-M) § Appellee. § MEMORANDUM OPINION Jonathan Geiger appeals the trial court’s judgment revoking community supervision. In 2009, Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and entered a plea of guilty to the offense of robbery, and the trial court placed Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision. The trial court subsequently entered an adjudication of guilt and sentenced Appellant to prison for ten years. The trial court later granted Appellant’s motion for shock probation and placed him on regular community supervision for a term of seven years. The State filed a motion to revoke the shock probation based on allegations that Appellant had violated the terms and conditions of community supervision. allegations. Appellant entered a plea of true to some of the The trial court found all but one of the allegations true, revoked community supervision, and sentenced Appellant to serve seven years in prison. We affirm. FRIVOLOUS APPEAL Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008)(“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has notified the Court in writing that he has delivered a copy of counsel’s brief and the motion to withdraw to Appellant, and he has advised Appellant of his right to review the record, file a pro se brief, and to seek discretionary review. Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318-20 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014)(setting forth duties of counsel). Counsel also provided Appellant with a copy of the appellate record. Appellant has filed a pro se brief. We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and the pro se brief. We agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit and we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A further discussion of the issues advanced in Appellant’s pro se brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. May 11, 2016 YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ. (Do Not Publish) -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.
