Juan Columbus Miles, Jr. v. The State of Texas Appeal from 396th District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-13-00377-CR JUAN COLUMBUS MILES, JR. APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1249446D ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------Appellant Juan Columbus Miles, Jr. entered a plea of guilty on May 29, 2012, to assault on a family member with a prior conviction. The trial court placed Miles on deferred adjudication community supervision for five years. Later, on July 8, 2013, the State petitioned the trial court to proceed to adjudication. At the revocation hearing, Miles entered open pleas of true to four 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. of the State’s allegations. After hearing Miles’s testimony, the trial court adjudicated Miles guilty of assault on a family member with a prior conviction and sentenced him to seven years’ incarceration. This appeal followed. Miles’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel avers that in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). This court informed Harris that he may file a pro se brief, but he did not do so. The State did not submit a brief as well. Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 2 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. /s/ Bill Meier BILL MEIER JUSTICE PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: July 9, 2015 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.
