Jamie Christian Jordan v. The State of Texas Appeal from 27th District Court of Bell County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-17-00108-CR Jamie Christian Jordan, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 69548, THE HONORABLE JOHN GAUNTT, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Jamie Christian Jordan was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision after she pled guilty to forgery by passing. See Tex. Penal Code § 32.21; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42A.101(a). Subsequently, the trial court granted the State’s motion to adjudicate after finding that appellant had violated the conditions of supervision.1 The court adjudicated appellant guilty, revoked her community supervision, and assessed her punishment at 12 months confinement in a State Jail Facility. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 42A.108, .110; Tex. Penal Code § 12.35. 1 The State’s motion to adjudicate contained one allegation, asserting that appellant failed to report to the community supervision officer as directed by the trial court. At the adjudication hearing, appellant pled true to the allegation. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to support a finding of true but withheld the finding, ordered an updated PSI report, and reset the case for sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, the court found the allegation was true. Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81–82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he sent copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of her right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and provided a motion to assist appellant in obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. To date, appellant has not filed a pro se response or requested an extension of time to file a response. We have conducted an independent review of the record—including the record of the adjudication proceedings and appellate counsel’s brief—and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is affirmed. 2 __________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Goodwin Affirmed Filed: May 16, 2017 Do Not Publish 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.
