Jeffery Len Jackson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 123rd District Court of Shelby County

NO. 12-04-00077-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JEFFERY LEN JACKSON. APPEAL FROM THE 123RD

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE SHELBY COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant Jeffery Len Jackson appeals from the revocation of his deferred adjudication probation. His counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant filed a pro se brief. We affirm.

Background

After waiving indictment, Appellant was charged by information with aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than 14 years of age. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 22.021(a)(1)(B)(i), (a)(2)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2005). On June 20, 2003, Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and received deferred adjudication probation for ten years. On September 19, 2003, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant s probation and proceed to final adjudication, alleging that Appellant had violated the terms of his probation. After a hearing on the State s motion, the trial court adjudicated Appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. This appeal followed.

On original submission, we dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Jackson v. State, No. 12-04-00077-CR, 2004 WL 1123828, at *1 (Tex. App. Tyler 2004) (not designated for publication). Appellant s counsel subsequently filed an Anders brief and a motion for rehearing, which was overruled. On petition for discretionary review, the court of criminal appeals reversed and remanded, holding that we had jurisdiction to address issues relating to events at the punishment hearing, the sentence, and other procedural issues. Jackson v. State, No. PD-1113-04, slip op. at 6 (Tex. Crim. App. June 22, 2005) (not designated for publication). Accordingly, we will conduct an Anders review.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. t. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969), stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant s counsel also moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal.

Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised three issues: (1) whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter when Appellant was tried upon an information that was not supported by a valid complaint/affidavit; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; and (3) whether Appellant s guilty plea was knowingly and intelligently entered.

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record. The record does not support Appellant s arguments, and we agree with counsel that the appeal is without merit.

Disposition

Having found no reversible error, Appellant s counsel s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court s judgment is affirmed.

Opinion delivered December 14, 2005.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)