Jazmyn Mica Hall v. the State of Texas

NOS. 12-24-00128-CR
12-24-00129-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JAZMYN MICA HALL, § APPEAL FROM THE 241ST
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

Jazmyn Mica Hall appeals following the revocation of her deferred adjudication
community supervision in two cases. Appellant’s 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). We affirm.

BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and
pleaded “guilty.” Appellant also was charged by a separate indictment with obstruction or
retaliation and pleaded “guilty” to that charge as well. In each case, the trial court deferred finding
Appellant “guilty” and placed her on community supervision for ten years for aggravated assault
and eight years for obstruction or retaliation.
Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision and
to adjudicate guilt in each case, alleging that Appellant violated certain terms and conditions
thereof. Specifically, the State contended that Appellant violated the terms of her community
supervision, in pertinent part, because she (1) failed to abide by the law and committed the criminal
offense of assault on a family or household member by impeding breathing, (2) failed to abide by
the condition prohibiting her possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages, and (3) failed to
satisfactorily perform Community Service Restitution as directed.
A hearing was conducted on the State’s motion, at which Appellant pleaded “true” to all
of the allegations in the State’s motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that
Appellant violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision as alleged in the State’s
motion. Thereafter, it revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated her “guilty” of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and obstruction or retaliation, and sentenced her to
imprisonment for twenty years for each offense. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed briefs in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel states that he diligently reviewed the appellate records in each case and
is of the opinion that the records reflect no reversible error and that there is no error upon which
either appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well-acquainted with the facts in these
cases. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.
[Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s briefs present a chronological summation of the procedural history
of the cases and further state that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for
appeal in either case. 1 We likewise have reviewed the records in these cases for reversible error
and found none.

CONCLUSION
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel moved for leave to withdraw in each case. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motions for consideration with the

1
In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the briefs, notified
Appellant of his motions to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of her right to file pro se responses, and took
concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate records. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file her own briefs. The time for filing such briefs has expired
and no pro se briefs have been filed.

2
merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motions
for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments.
As a result of our disposition of these cases, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five
days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise
her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of these cases by the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she either must retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review on her behalf or she must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion
or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with
the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at
408 n.22.

Opinion delivered September 30, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

3
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 30, 2024

NO. 12-24-00128-CR

JAZMYN MICA HALL,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-0460-21)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.

By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 30, 2024

NO. 12-24-00129-CR

JAZMYN MICA HALL,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-0461-21)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.

By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.