Robert Leon Jenkins, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 361st District Court of Brazos County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-09-00233-CR
No. 10-09-00248-CR
ROBERT LEON JENKINS, JR.,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 361st District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 08-03830-CRM-361 and 08-03663-CRF-361
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Robert Leon Jenkins pled guilty, without the benefit of a plea bargain, to the
felony offenses of fraudulent use or possession of identifying information and forgery
of a financial instrument and the misdemeanor offense of failure to identify. TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. §§ 32.51, 32.21(d), 38.02 (West Pamp. 2010). He was sentenced to 23 months
in a State Jail facility in each of the felony offenses, and 180 days in jail in the
misdemeanor offense. We affirm.
Jenkins's appellate attorney filed an Anders brief in both appeals. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Jenkins was informed of
his right to submit a brief on his own behalf. Although Jenkins did not file a brief, the
State did file a response to counsel’s Anders brief.
Counsel's brief suggests as potential issues (1) voluntariness of the plea, (2)
incorrect order of the hearing, (3) excessive punishment, and (4) failure to make docket
entries. Counsel reviews the potential issues and concludes that the appeal is frivolous.
Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error, and we
conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders,
386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the
proceedings, … decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders, 386 U.S. at
744; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is
"wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v.
Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988).
Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably persuade the court." Id. at 436.
An appeal is not wholly frivolous when it is based on "arguable grounds." Stafford, 813
S.W.2d at 511.
After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we determine the appeal to be
wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Should Jenkins wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, Jenkins must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
Jenkins v. State
Page 2
discretionary review or Jenkins 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. See also In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
Counsel's request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Jenkins
is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Jenkins a copy of our decision, notify
Jenkins of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court
a letter certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4.
TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed February 2, 2011
Do not publish
[CR25]
Jenkins v. State
Page 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.