Jon Lennon Hall v. The State of TexasAppeal from 213th District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo Nos. 07-13-00152-CR 07-13-00153-CR 07-13-00154-CR JON LENNON HALL, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 213th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 1244943D, 1244944D, 1244946D, Honorable Louis E. Sturns, Presiding May 8, 2014 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant, Jon Lennon Hall, entered pleas of guilty, without benefit of a plea bargain, to three indictments alleging evading arrest or detention enhanced by a prior conviction, a state jail felony offense;1 aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony offense;2 and aggravated assault on a public servant, a first- 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(a), (b)(1)(A) (West Supp. 2013). 2 See id. § 22.02(a)(2), (b) (West 2011). degree felony offense.3 The trial court subsequently heard the evidence regarding punishment and sentence appellant to two years in a State Jail Facility on the evading arrest or detention charge, 10 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (ID-TDCJ) aggravated assault with a deadly weapon charge, and 20 years in the ID-TDCJ on the aggravated assault on a public servant charge. Appellant has perfected his appeals. We will 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 reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeals are frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds 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. 3 See id. § 22.02 (a)(2), (b)(2)(B). 2 Crim. App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeals are frivolous. Accordingly, counsel s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court s judgments are affirmed.4 Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish. 4 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.
