Jerrod Allen Standridge v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 23, 2025
• Docket: 07-24-00289-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00289-CR

JERROD ALLEN STANDRIDGE, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 47th District Court Randall County, Texas Trial Court No. 32443A, Honorable Dee Johnson, Presiding

June 23, 2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Pending before this Court is a motion to withdraw supported by a brief filed

pursuant to Anders v. California.1 Pursuant to a plea of not guilty, Appellant Jerrod Allen

Standridge, was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with an affirmative finding on

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). use of a deadly weapon.2 He was sentenced by the trial court to confinement for ten

years.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a

conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, it reflects no potentially

plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling

authorities, the record supports that conclusion. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated he has complied with the

requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to

Appellant, (2) notifying him of the right to file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and

(3) informing him of the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408.3 By letter, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to

exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief, should he be so inclined. Id. at 409

n.23. Appellant did not file a response. The State notified this Court it will not be filing an

Appellee’s brief unless a determination is made the appeal has merit.

2 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2).

3 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary

review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Id. at 408 n.22, 411. The duty to send the client a copy of this Court’s decision 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. Id. at 411 n.33.

2 By the Anders brief, counsel evaluates all phases of the proceedings and the

sufficiency of the evidence. He candidly concedes he is unable to identify any error which

would result in reversal of Appellant’s conviction.

We too have independently examined the record to determine whether there are

any non-frivolous issues which might support this appeal. 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;

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no such

issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After

reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree there is no plausible basis for reversal

of Appellant’s conviction. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005).

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

Alex Yarbrough Justice

Do not publish.