Jason Robert Adams v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 1 of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-15-00056-CR JASON ROBERT ADAMS APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1362060D ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------A jury convicted Appellant Jason Robert Adams of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury and, after Adams pleaded true to the habitual offender allegation, assessed his punishment at twenty-five years’ confinement. Adams’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 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 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 Adams that he may file a pro se brief, and he did so. The State did not submit a brief. 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, counsel’s brief, and Adams’s pro se 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 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny as moot Adams’s motion for withdrawal and appointment of new counsel, and affirm the trial court’s judgment. /s/ Bill Meier BILL MEIER JUSTICE 2 PANEL: LIVINGTON, C.J.; MEIER and SUDDERTH, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: October 29, 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.
