Jeffery Wade Roberson v. The State of Texas Appeal from 441st District Court of Midland County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed December 31, 2020 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________ No. 11-20-00017-CR ___________ JEFFERY WADE ROBERSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 441st District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR49424 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Jeffery Wade Roberson waived his right to a trial by a jury and pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of one gram or more but less than four grams of a controlled substance and true to an alleged enhancement paragraph. The trial court found Appellant guilty of the charged offense, found that the alleged enhancement was true, and assessed punishment of six years’ imprisonment. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that she has concluded that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both the reporter’s record and the clerk’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Courtappointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant has filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant contends that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel and that he has difficulty with “decision-making” due to past medical conditions and needs “mental help.” We have considered the assertions made by Appellant in his pro se response. However, in addressing an Anders brief and a pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (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 case to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the 2 procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.1 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court. PER CURIAM December 31, 2020 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Wright, S.C.J. 2 Willson, J., not participating We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment. 2 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.
