Jarven Roberson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 27, 2026
• Docket: 07-25-00204-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00204-CR

JARVEN ROBERSON, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 140th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019-418046, Honorable Douglas H. Freitag, Presiding

January 27, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

On June 22, 2021, Appellant, Jarven Roberson, entered a guilty plea to one count

of assault, domestic violence, with strangulation, a third-degree felony. 1 The trial court

deferred a finding of guilt and placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision

for a period of four years. In May of 2022, the State filed a motion to proceed with

adjudication of guilt, and in May of 2025, the State filed its first amended motion to

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2)(B). proceed with adjudication of guilt. The State alleged Appellant failed to comply with

multiple conditions of his community supervision order.

At the hearing on the State’s motion, Appellant pleaded “not true” to each of the

State’s allegations. After presentation of the evidence, the trial court found two

allegations to be true and made no findings as to the other allegations. The trial court

then adjudicated Appellant guilty and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment.

Appellant timely appealed from the judgment adjudicating his guilt.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported

by an Anders 2 brief. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has conducted

a conscientious examination of the record, and, in his opinion, the record reflects no

reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the

controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant,

counsel notified him of his motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of the motion,

Anders brief, and motion to access the appellate record; and informed him of his right to

file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App.

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

supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

2 file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant did not file a response. The

State has not filed a brief.

By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error

may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently

examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were

preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal, but we have found no such

issues. 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). Following our careful review of the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we

conclude that there are no grounds for appellate review that would result in reversal of

Appellant’s conviction or sentence.

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 3

Judy C. Parker Chief Justice

Do not publish.

3 Counsel shall, within five days after the 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 the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.