James Francis Reynolds v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 18, 2025
• Docket: 10-24-00358-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-24-00358-CR

James Francis Reynolds, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 413th District Court of Johnson County, Texas Judge William C. Bosworth Jr., presiding Trial Court Cause No. DC-F202200728

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

James Francis Reynolds pled "not true" to all violations alleged by the

State in its first amended motion to revoke Reynolds’ community supervision

for the third-degree felony offense of assault family violence by impeding

breath. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.01(b)(2)(B). After a contested hearing on

the motion, the trial court revoked Reynolds' community supervision and

sentenced him to 10 years in prison. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Reynolds’ 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 Anders, 386 U.S. at

744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly

v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 407 (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; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 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, 439 n. 10, 108

S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). In our review, we have paid particular

attention to the issues identified in appellant’s pro se response to his counsel’s

brief in support of the motion to withdraw. After a review of the entire record

in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See

Reynolds v. State Page 2 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly,

we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Reynolds is

granted.

LEE HARRIS Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: June 18, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Motion granted Do Not Publish [CR25]

Reynolds v. State Page 3