Jack Alonso Rock v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 23, 2025
• Docket: 07-24-00297-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00297-CR

JACK ALONSO ROCK, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 47th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 084916-A-CR, Honorable Dee Johnson, Presiding

June 23, 2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

Appellant, Jack Alonso Rock, was indicted for possession of methamphetamine

enhanced by a prior felony conviction.1 A jury convicted him of the charged offense. The

trial court sentenced him to ten years in prison after he pleaded true to the enhancement.

This appeal followed. Appellant’s counsel seeks to withdraw, supported by an Anders2

brief. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment.

1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a),(c); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(a) (providing punishment enhancement). The original indictment alleged Appellant possessed cocaine but was amended to allege methamphetamine possession of one gram but less than four.

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Appellant’s counsel has certified that he conducted a conscientious examination

of the record and found no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

The record indicates counsel provided Appellant with copies of his motion to withdraw,

his Anders brief, and the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014) (specifying counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw

supported by an Anders brief). This Court advised Appellant by letter of the right to file a

pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant has not filed a response.

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s Anders brief and conducted an independent

review of the record to determine whether any nonfrivolous issues support an appeal.

See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App.

1969). We conclude there are no grounds for appellate review that would result in

reversal of Appellant’s conviction or sentence.

CONCLUSION

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.3

Lawrence M. Doss Justice

Do not publish.

3 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the

opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after this Court grants counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33. 2