Jermaine Garmon v. State
Opinion
NO. 07-05-0298-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
MAY 9, 2006
______________________________
JERMAINE E. GARMON,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2004-406,266; HON. JIM BOB DARNELL, PRESIDING
_______________________________
ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant Jermaine E. Garmon appeals from his conviction of possession with intent
to deliver a controlled substance (cocaine) in an amount less than 200 grams but at least
four grams. He was convicted upon an open plea of guilty after denial of his motion to
suppress and sentenced to 45 years confinement. Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw together with an Anders1 brief
wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, the appeal was without merit.
After review of appellant’s pro se brief and our own independent review of the record, we
abate the cause and remand the proceeding for the appointment of new counsel.
The facts show that appellant was under arrest for an unrelated offense when he
requested to return to his residence to use the bathroom. The officer accompanied
appellant and, without offering any Miranda warnings, asked appellant if “there was
anything illegal, anything [the officer] should know about inside the residence . . . .”
Appellant allegedly directed the officer to a laundry hamper where marijuana was
discovered. The officer then purportedly asked for consent to search the house which was
allegedly given. During that search, the cocaine which is the subject of this proceeding
was found in the laundry hamper in which the marijuana was also discovered in response
to the officer’s question. While appellate counsel discussed whether the consent2 was
voluntary, appellant contends that he was initially interrogated while in custody without
having received the proper warnings. Out of an abundance of caution, we conclude that
evaluation of this contention is necessary before we determine if the appeal is frivolous.
Having found an arguable ground for appeal, we abate the appeal and remand the
cause to the 140th District Court of Lubbock County. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Upon remand, the trial court shall appoint an attorney
to represent appellant in this appeal. The trial court shall further order the newly appointed
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 8 7 S.C t. 1396, 18 L.Ed .2d (1 967 ).
2 It is not clear whether the consent being discussed is the remark to look in the laundry hamper or the cons ent to sea rch the hous e.
2 counsel to file an appellant’s brief, as per the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,
developing the aforementioned arguable ground and any other grounds that might support
reversal or modification of the judgment. The deadline for filing appellant’s brief with the
clerk of this court is June 10, 2006. Thereafter, any responding brief which the State may
care to submit shall be filed within 30 days after the filing of appellant’s brief. Finally, the
trial court shall cause the name, address, and state bar number of the newly appointed
counsel to be included in a supplemental transcript which transcript shall be filed with the
clerk of this court by June 10, 2006.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is remanded
to the trial court for further proceedings.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Jermaine Garmon v. State (Jermaine Garmon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.