Jack Turner v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas

No. 10-23-00421-CR

Jack Turner,
Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,
Appellee

On appeal from the
12th District Court of Walker County, Texas
Judge David W. Moorman, presiding
Trial Court No. 30712

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Jack Turner guilty of aggravated robbery and burglary of

a habitation. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 29.03; 30.02(d). The jury found

the enhancement paragraphs true and assessed Turner’s punishment at fifty

years and twenty-five years confinement respectively in the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division. See TEX. PENAL CODE

ANN. §§ 12.32; 12.33; 12.42. The judge sentenced Turner accordingly and
ordered the sentences to run concurrently. This appeal ensued. We affirm

the trial court’s judgments for each offense.

Turner’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders

brief in support of the motion in each case asserting that he has diligently

reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Counsel’s brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and

compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that

counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See id. at

744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App.

[Panel Op.] 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all

the proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386

U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct.

346, 349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

503, 509–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or

“without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of

Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440

(1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined

Turner v. The State of Texas Page 2
the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–

28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Turner is granted.

MATT JOHNSON
Chief Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: February 20, 2025

Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed
Do Not Publish
[CRPM]

Turner v. The State of Texas Page 3