Jerrett Lamar Devont Grant v. the State of Texas
This text of Jerrett Lamar Devont Grant v. the State of Texas (Jerrett Lamar Devont Grant v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-25-00152-CR
JERRETT LAMAR DEVONT GRANT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 8th District Court Hopkins County, Texas Trial Court No. 2530771
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jerrett Lamar Devont Grant pled guilty to assault of a pregnant person, a third-degree
felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(8). Pursuant to a plea bargain with the State,
Grant was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years. The State filed
a motion to adjudicate Grant’s guilt, which alleged that he violated the term of his community
supervision requiring him to pay $30.00 per month as his community-supervision fee even
though he had the ability to pay it. Grant pled true to the State’s allegation and, as a result, the
trial court adjudicated Grant’s guilt and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. Grant
appeals.
Grant’s attorney has filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no genuinely
arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural history of the
case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings.
Since counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are
no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders v.
California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this
appeal.
On January 28, 2026, counsel mailed Grant copies of the brief, the motion to withdraw,
and a motion for pro se access to the appellate record lacking only Grant’s signature. Grant was
2 informed of his rights to review the record and file a pro se response. On January 28, we
informed Grant that his motion for pro se access to the record was due on or before February 12.
By letter dated March 3, this Court informed Grant that the case would be set for submission on
March 24. We received neither a pro se response from Grant nor a motion requesting an
extension of time in which to file such a response.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently
reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue
supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In
the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial
court’s judgment. Id.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1
Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice
Date Submitted: March 24, 2026 Date Decided: May 6, 2026
Do Not Publish
1 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jerrett Lamar Devont Grant v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerrett-lamar-devont-grant-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp6-2026.