Michael Jackson v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________
NO. 09-23-00352-CR
________________

MICHAEL JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 411th District Court
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 25190
________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Michael Jackson guilty of aggravated assault on a public servant,

a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.02(a), (b)(2)(B); 22.01. The

trial court assessed Jackson’s punishment with a finding of one enhancement at

ninety-nine years of imprisonment. See id. § 12.32.

Jackson’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See

1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). On July 23, 2024, we granted an extension of time for Jackson to

file a pro se brief. Jackson did not file a pro se brief in response.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives

an Anders brief, an appellate court has two choices. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It may determine that the appeal is wholly

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

no reversible error[;] [o]r, it may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist

and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief

the issues.” Id. (citations omitted).

Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of

the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (Tex. 1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the

entire record, counsel’s brief, and we have found no reversible error, and we

conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27.

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

2
the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We

affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.

KENT CHAMBERS
Justice

Submitted on March 3, 2025
Opinion Delivered March 5, 2025
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.

1Jackson may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
3