Franklin Calvin Jones v. The State of Texas Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-21-00090-CR FRANKLIN CALVIN JONES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court No. 20-26069 MEMORANDUM OPINION Franklin Jones entered a plea of guilty to the offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. On July 20, 2020, the trial court convicted Jones of the offense and assessed punishment at twenty-four months confinement in a state jail facility. The trial court suspended imposition of the sentence and placed Jones on community supervision for four years. On December 10, 2020, the State filed a motion to revoke Jones’s community supervision, and on February 9, 2021, the State filed an amended motion to revoke community supervision. The amended motion alleged Jones violated the conditions of his community supervision by committing the offense of theft of property. After a hearing, the trial court found the allegation to be true, revoked Jones’s community supervision, and sentenced Jones to twenty-four months confinement in a state jail facility. We affirm. Jones’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); 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." Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); 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 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be Jones v. State Page 2 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. Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Jones is granted. STEVE SMITH Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed; motion granted Opinion delivered and filed October 6, 2021 Do not publish [CR25] Jones 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.
