Jamee Ladyral Womack v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 27, 2025
• Docket: 10-24-00223-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-24-00222-CR 10-24-00223-CR

Jamee Ladyral Womack, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 82nd District Court of Falls County, Texas Judge Bryan F. Russ, Jr., presiding Trial Court Cause Nos. 10621, 10825

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jamee Ladyral Womack pled guilty in trial court cause number 10621 to

the first-degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance with

intent to deliver and in trial court cause number 10825 to the third-degree

felony offense of continuous violence against the family. See TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(d); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 25.11. The trial

court deferred an adjudication of guilt and placed him on five years of deferred adjudication community supervision on each offense. In November of 2023,

the State filed motions to proceed with an adjudication of guilt in both cases

and alleged that Womack committed two new offenses – possession of a

controlled substance and possession of marijuana. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY

CODE ANN. §§ 481.116(d), 481.121(b)(2).

At the hearing on the State’s motions, Womack pleaded “not true” to the

allegations. After hearing testimony and receiving evidence, the trial court

found both allegations to be “true,” adjudicated Womack’s guilt in each case,

and assessed punishment at thirty years in prison on the first-degree felony

offense and at ten years in prison on the third-degree felony offense. This

appeal followed.

Womack’s appointed appellate counsel filed motions to withdraw and

Anders briefs in support of the motions asserting that he has diligently

reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, both appeals are

frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18

L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s briefs demonstrate a professional evaluation

of the record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed

counsel. As such, we conclude that counsel has performed the duties required

of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; High v.

State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 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, Jamee Ladyral Womack v. The State of Texas Page 2 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). By letter, we informed Womack of his right to

review the appellate record and to file a pro se response. Womack did not file

a response.

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, 351, 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, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). After a

review of the entire record in these appeals, we conclude that they are wholly

frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments adjudicating guilt in

each case. Counsel’s motions to withdraw from representation of Womack are

granted.

STEVE SMITH Justice

Jamee Ladyral Womack v. The State of Texas Page 3 OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: March 27, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed; Motions granted Do not publish [CRPM]

Jamee Ladyral Womack v. The State of Texas Page 4