Jonathan Scott Evans v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-22-00202-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JONATHAN SCOTT EVANS, § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Jonathan Scott Evans appeals his conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a child.
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 continuous sexual abuse of a child. 1 He
pleaded “not guilty,” and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.
At trial, the evidence showed that Appellant and L.C. were in a long-term relationship.
L.C. worked outside the home while Appellant stayed home with the couple’s five children,
including L.C.’s daughter from a previous relationship, S.C. When S.C. was twelve years old,
she told L.C. that Appellant was touching her inappropriately. L.C. contacted the police. In a
forensic interview, S.C. reported many instances of sexual abuse by Appellant beginning when
she was about ten years old.

1
A first-degree felony punishable by imprisonment for a term of life, or not more than ninety-nine years or
less than twenty-five years. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 21.02(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (h) (West Supp. 2023).
In a police interview, Appellant explained that his DNA might be found on S.C.’s body
because a towel that was covering his body fell to the floor when she hugged him, and he
accidentally ejaculated on her. He further told the police that his mouth might have accidentally
contacted S.C.’s vagina when he was giving her “raspberries.” Appellant explained other
incidents by saying that his penis might have accidentally fallen free from his shorts, he might
have accidentally touched S.C.’s vagina in his sleep, and S.C. touched his penis while he was
asleep. Appellant testified that he believed S.C. fabricated her allegations because he forbade
her from seeing a boy.
Ultimately, the jury found Appellant “guilty” and assessed his punishment at
imprisonment for life. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel relates that he reviewed the record, found no reversible points of error
to support an appeal, and determined the appeal is frivolous. In compliance with High v. State,
573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief contains a
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced. 2
We conducted an independent review of the record in this case and found no reversible
error. See id. We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See id.

CONCLUSION
As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for
consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant
counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

2
We provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified him of his counsel’s motion to withdraw,
informed him of his right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate his review of the
appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to
file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and no pro se brief was filed.

2
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 him of his 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 this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must
either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a
pro se petition for discretionary review. 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(a). 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 Rule
68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered November 30, 2023.
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

NOVEMBER 30, 2023

NO. 12-22-00202-CR

JONATHAN SCOTT EVANS,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1085-19)

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.