Douglas Eugene Jahns v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 11, 2023
• Docket: 08-23-00013-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

DOUGLAS EUGENE JAHNS, § No. 08-23-00013-CR

Appellant, § Appeal from the

v. § 451st Judicial District Court

THE STATE OF TEXAS, § of Kendall County, Texas

Appellee. § (TC# 7610)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Appellant Douglas Eugene Jahns guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly

weapon and assessed punishment of 20 years’ imprisonment. We affirm. 1

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief articulating that the appeal is wholly

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738, 744 (1967) and presents a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are

no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if

counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and

set out pertinent legal authorities.”). Counsel notified the Court in writing that he delivered a copy

1 This case was transferred from our sister court in San Antonio, and we decide it in accordance with the precedent of that court to the extent required by TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. of counsel’s brief and the motion to withdraw to Appellant and that he also advised Appellant of

his rights to review the record, file a pro se brief, and seek discretionary review. Counsel indicated

that he made Appellant aware of the process for obtaining the appellate record and provided this

Court’s address and a motion for pro se access to the appellate record that lacks only Appellant’s

signature. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (an attorney filing

an Anders brief must “(1) notify his client of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying Anders

brief, providing him a copy of each, (2) inform him of his right to file a pro se response and of his

right to review the record preparatory to filing that response, . . . (3) inform him of his pro se right

to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare his appeal frivolous . . . [and] (4)

take concrete measures to initiate and facilitate the process of actuating his client’s right to review

the appellate record, if that is what his client wishes”). Appellant has not filed a pro se brief in over

30 days since defense counsel filed a brief and informed Appellant of his rights. See In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. The State has filed a waiver of its right to file a reply to

Appellant’s Anders brief.

After carefully reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find nothing in the record that

might arguably support the appeal. We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without

merit. We grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw in accordance with Anders v. California

and affirm the trial court’s judgment supporting Appellant’s conviction.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

July 11, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)