Jack Blaine Glass v. The State of Texas Appeal from 253rd District Court of Liberty County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-15-00082-CR ____________________ JACK BLAINE GLASS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 253rd District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR29988 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Jack Blaine Glass (Glass) pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 2011). The trial court deferred the adjudication of Glass’s guilt, placed Glass on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $2,000 fine. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke community supervision. During the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, Glass pleaded “true” to some of the alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision, and the trial court found that Glass had also 1 violated other terms of his community supervision as alleged in the motion to revoke. Finding that Glass violated the terms of his community supervision, the trial court revoked Glass’s community supervision, found that a deadly weapon was used in commission of the original offense, adjudicated Glass’s guilt, and sentenced him to twenty years in prison. Glass timely filed a notice of appeal. Glass’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). On August 6, 2015, we granted an extension of time for Glass to file a pro se brief. Glass filed a pro se brief in response. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has explained that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, we may determine that (1) “the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that [the appellate court] has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[]” or that (2) “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 entire appellate record in this matter, as well as all briefs, and we agree that no arguable 2 issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1 AFFIRMED. _________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on November 9, 2015 Opinion Delivered November 12, 2015 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ. 1 Glass 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.
