Jarven Roberson v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided January 27, 2026·No. 07-25-00204-CR·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).

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jarven Roberson v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2026).

Jarven Roberson v. the State of Texas (Jarven Roberson v. the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
In Re Schulman
252 S.W.3d 403 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2008)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Gainous v. State
436 S.W.2d 137 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Kelly, Sylvester
436 S.W.3d 313 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2014)