Fredrick Jerrett Smith v. the State of Texas

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00247-CR

Fredrick Jerrett Smith, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
NO. 79391, THE HONORABLE DEBBIE GARRETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Fredrick Jerrett Smith was convicted of the offense of failure to comply with sex-

offender-registration requirements and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, but the trial court

suspended the sentence and placed him on community supervision. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.

art. 62.102; Tex. Penal Code § 12.34. A few years later, the State filed a motion to revoke

his community supervision. Smith pleaded true to the revocation allegations. Following a

hearing, the trial court revoked his community supervision and sentenced him to four years’

imprisonment. Smith appealed the trial court’s judgment revoking his community supervision.

Smith’s court-appointed attorney on appeal filed a motion to withdraw supported

by an Anders brief contending that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Smith’s court-appointed attorney’s brief meets the

requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating
that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id.; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766

(Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988) (explaining that

Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact

conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”). Smith’s

counsel represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to Smith;

advised Smith of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue

discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided Smith

with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address of

this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Smith did not

file a pro se brief and did not request an extension of time to do so.

We have independently reviewed the record and considered Smith’s appellate

brief filed by counsel, and we have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. See

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree with counsel that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the

trial court’s judgment revoking community supervision.

__________________________________________
Karin Crump, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Crump and Ellis

Affirmed

Filed: October 1, 2025

Do Not Publish

2