Christopher E. Jacobs v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 71st District Court of Harrison County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-10-00047-CR
______________________________
CHRISTOPHER E. JACOBS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 71st Judicial District Court
Harrison County, Texas
Trial Court No. 09-0291X
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Christopher E. Jacobs appeals his conviction on multiple counts on his open plea of guilty
to each count. He was sentenced to two life terms for two counts of aggravated sexual assault,
twenty years each on two counts of sexual performance by a child, and ten years for possession of
child pornography.
Jacobs’ attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the
proceedings in detail, combined with a discussion of one issue that counsel nonetheless believes
may be arguable, although without merit—constitutionally disproportionate sentencing. Counsel
has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no
arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); and High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Jacobs on July 15, 2010, informing Jacobs of his right
to file a pro se response and of his right to review the record. Counsel has also filed a motion with
this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. Jacobs has now filed his pro se response,
alleging that his confession was coerced, his punishment was unjust, the search and seizure at his
residence was illegal and there was no probable cause to do so, his arrest was illegal, and the search
warrant was illegal.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. The possible issue proposed by
2
counsel was not preserved for review, see Williamson v. State, 175 S.W.3d 522, 523–24 (Tex.
App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.), and even had it been, there is nothing to support an argument that
the punishments assessed (within the statutory ranges) is constitutionally grossly disproportionate
to the gravity of the offenses. Id.; see Latham v. State, 20 S.W.3d 63, 69 (Tex. App.—Texarkana
2000, pet. ref’d). We have independently reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record,
in light of Jacobs’ pro se response, and we agree with counsel that no arguable issues support an
appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
In a frivolous appeal situation, we are to determine whether the appeal is without merit and
is frivolous, and if so, the appeal must be dismissed or affirmed. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted:
Date Decided:
March 28, 2011
March 29, 2011
Do Not Publish
1
Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to
withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should
appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain
an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se petition for discretionary review.
Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last
timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary
review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.4.
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.
