Jeremy Joe Freeman v. the State of Texas
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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.