Jeremy Joe Freeman v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 7, 2025
Docket10-25-00104-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Jeremy Joe Freeman v. the State of Texas (Jeremy Joe Freeman v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jeremy Joe Freeman v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00103-CR 10-25-00104-CR

Jeremy Joe Freeman, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 52nd District Court of Coryell County, Texas Judge Trent D. Farrell, presiding Trial Court Cause Nos. 21-26968, 22-27403

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jeremy Joe Freeman was convicted of two separate felony offenses of

violation of a bond or court order, see TEX. PENAL CODE 25.07(a)(2), (g)(2), and

sentenced to 10 years in prison for each offense. We affirm the trial court’s

judgments.

Freeman’s 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 appeals are 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). After a review of the entire record in

these appeals, we have determined the appeals to be 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.

Counsel's motions to withdraw from representation of Freeman are

granted.

Freeman v. State Page 2 LEE HARRIS Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: August 7, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Motions granted Do Not Publish CR25

Freeman v. State Page 3

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1
486 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court, 1988)
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)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Kelly, Sylvester
436 S.W.3d 313 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jeremy Joe Freeman v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeremy-joe-freeman-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.