Robert Lee Jones v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-06-302 CR
____________________
ROBERT LEE JONES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 97226
MEMORANDUM OPINION

On appeal, Robert Lee Jones complains that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to request a competency hearing. We hold that Jones has failed to demonstrate any arguable error.

Jones entered a non-negotiated plea of no contest to aggravated assault. See Tex. Pen. Code. Ann. 22.02 (Vernon Supp. 2006). Although the State contends that a plea agreement existed, the record indicates that there was none. The trial court found Jones guilty and sentenced him to twenty years in prison.

Jones's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. (1) Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record to demonstrate why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel provided Jones with a copy of the brief.

Jones then filed a pro se brief. On appeal, Jones complains that he did not receive a competency hearing, and contends that he was entitled to receive one because he was not mentally competent at the time of trial and because he was insane at the time he committed his offense. Jones specifically asserts that his counsel was deficient in failing to request a competency hearing on his behalf.

The Court of Criminal Appeals directs that we 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 independently examined the clerk's record, the reporter's record, counsel's brief, and appellate's pro se brief. Based on the record below, we agree that there is no arguable error. (2) We agree with appellate counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appointment of new counsel is not required. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Jones is free to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals to challenge our ruling. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

____________________________

HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

 

Submitted on July 5, 2007

Opinion Delivered July 25, 2007

Do Not Publish

 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.

1. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

2. Relief in appropriate cases for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel may be available through an application for writ of habeas corpus. See Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 814-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).