Joshua Shane Meadows v. The State of Texas Appeal from 26th District Court of Williamson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-18-00796-CR NO. 03-18-00808-CR Joshua Shane Meadows, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NOS. 16-3158-K26, 17-1500-K26, THE HONORABLE DONNA GAYLE KING, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Joshua Shane Meadows entered an open plea of guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance in an amount of more than one gram but less than four grams and one count of evading arrest with a vehicle. The trial court found Meadows guilty of these offenses and made a finding that Meadows used a deadly weapon in the commission of evading arrest. The court sentenced Meadows to eight years’ imprisonment for possession of a controlled substance and ten years’ imprisonment for evading arrest. Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed motions to withdraw supported by briefs concluding that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet 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, 86–87 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has represented to the Court that he has provided copies of the motions and briefs to appellant; advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief; and provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. Smith, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. To date, appellant has not filed a pro se response. We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate counsel’s briefs, 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 appeals are frivolous. Counsel’s motions to withdraw are granted. The trial court’s judgments of conviction are affirmed. ____________________________________________ Chari L. Kelly, Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Kelly and Smith Affirmed Filed: August 20, 2019 Do Not Publish 2
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.
