# Jones, Calvin Jr.

> Texas Supreme Court · November 2, 2015

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4057360

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 2, 2015
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4057360

## Opinion text

\HOr)t\AQET^i\rr. SbE

UWVL^ZNADDmOM Ms. RncjEBG- EpRED-^MaOE F.f?Qna» G&E TMcrflflrS
Sl^SmrrE; j? &W, 3D. rtvod pss Mr.'^Zaies PLE&DquiLrry.

.__ Ground For Res/'iEW Number FvuR ^ __
.„ Plea BaR^Mti Agreement "l/'-
JELk p&n& Dm%.t c>io S, U/. sip -yes- (lex. Cgi'm App iG9i). Mr. Jones
PLE&J&mailJ AcjREE/VlEMT WAS TNVQLUNTARv" BASED ON TUB FMCTf
U-ie &OIL.TY PLeA WAS "iNVQWMTAR/' SINCE ttis PtTTORNEV. M$. f?ojER€
WAG INEFFECTIVE. Afe. RojEftS WAS ESSENTIALLY ZTVST A Gop-G/T
MAN WUQ WAG PRESENT WITH MRdoNES WHEN HE PLEADED QiJt TO
fl "NOME pRE-AflRAfCjMEQL DEAL. BETWEEN M°M Aa/O TUE STATE. AlojE
^/ksgArr/A/g opinio$ erring Ex pA/tTE Harris 5~^(jryi AMD Uilut%mts_ of less than &$ ^RAN&r
ONoHAGOUT H&RUWy 1%SL0i3i in GfWiQE G>umtV, 1ejCA% liji.5 IS ABSOLUTE
Ly False Gee Uaclk^o^ \t Wfow/V mi U.S. 3cnJ s-er
&>SUflROU lams -I15V3
In The

Court ofAppeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

NO. 09-14-00460-CR

CALVIN JONES JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 163rd District Court
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. B080617-R

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Calvin Jones Jr. (Jones)

pleaded guilty to the offense of felony possession of a controlled substance,

enhanced by a prior felony conviction. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §

481.117(a), (e) (West 2010); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(c)(1) (West Supp.
2014).'The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Jones guilty, but

deferred further proceedings and placed Jones on community supervision for ten

years and assessed a $1,440.00 fine. The State subsequently filed its First

Amended Motion to Impose Guilt, to revoke Jones's unadjudicated community

supervision. Jones pleaded "true" to certain alleged violations of the conditions of

his community supervision. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court

found that Jones violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Jones

guilty of possession of a controlled substance, and assessed punishment at fifteen

years in prison.

Jones's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978). On March 3, 2015, and June 15, 2015, we granted an extension of time for

Jones to file a pro se brief. Jones filed a pro se Brief. The Court of Criminal

Appeals has held that an appellate court may determine that (1) "the appeal is

wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record

and finds no reversible error"; or (2) "arguable grounds for appeal exist and

!We cite to the current version of the statute as the subsequent amendments
do not affect the outcome of this appeal.
2
remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief

the issues." Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We have reviewed the entire appellate record, as well as all briefs, and we

agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal.

Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief

the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice

Submitted on June 4, 2015
Opinion Delivered July 29, 2015
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

2Jones may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
f >

z
5&
z.oo
^m1* O r=n
o
O-'T- —i o
cC>
XTz i«o
H-t2 6*3
cr>
»—1

•") O .-1 •<
•y c r-
<_* l-3rj
?•-!•<

£2

u

Q

%
_

0,

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4057360. Public record. Not legal advice.