Cedric Bernard James v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Court of Appeals

Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00083-CR

Cedric Bernard James,

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 Cause No. 29578

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court found Cedric Bernard James violated six terms and conditions of his deferred adjudication community supervision for the felony offense of injury to an elderly person. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 22.04. As a result, the trial court found James guilty and assessed his punishment at ten years confinement. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 12.34. This appeal ensued. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

James’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motion 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 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 judgment.

James v. State Page 2

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

MATT JOHNSON

Chief Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: July 9, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do Not Publish CR25

James v. State Page 3