Joshua Andrew Jones v. The State of Texas Appeal from 9th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-19-00380-CR __________________ JOSHUA ANDREW JONES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 9th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 17-04-04991-CR __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A grand jury indicted Appellant Joshua Andrew Jones for the second-degree offense of online solicitation of a minor. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 33.021(c). Jones waived his right to a jury trial and pleaded guilty. The trial court accepted the plea, found Jones guilty, and assessed punishment at twenty years of confinement. Jones timely appealed. On appeal, Jones’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that she has reviewed the case and, based on her professional evaluation of the record and 1 applicable law, she concluded that the appeal lacks merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Jones to file a pro se brief, and Jones filed no response. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). 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 1 Jones may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 Submitted on November 2, 2020 Opinion Delivered November 12, 2020 Do Not Publish Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ. 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.
