Jerimy Ryan Godwin v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 396th District Court of Tarrant County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-12-00045-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL C JULY 17, 2012 JERIMY RYAN GODWIN, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY; NO. 1230710D; HONORABLE GEORGE W. GALLAGHER, JUDGE Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Jerimy Ryan Godwin, entered a plea of guilty to assault on a family member1 and, pursuant to a plea bargain, was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for four years. The State filed a motion and an amended motion seeking to adjudicate appellant guilty of the original offense. The trial court heard the evidence at the hearing on the motion to adjudicate and found appellant guilty. The trial court sentenced appellant to ten years confinement in the Institutional Division of the 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ยง 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2) (West 2011). Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant is appealing that judgment. We affirm. Appellant=s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court=s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response. By his Anders brief, counsel raised a ground that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed this ground and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. 2 Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court=s judgment is affirmed.2 Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish. 2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. 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.
