Jimmy Don Walker v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 10, 2023
• Docket: 06-22-00164-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-22-00164-CR

JIMMY DON WALKER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 115th District Court Marion County, Texas Trial Court No. F15507

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 2, 2022, Jimmy Don Walker pled guilty to possession of less than one

gram of a Penalty Group 1 controlled substance, a state jail felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY

CODE ANN. § 481.115(b). The trial court accepted Walker’s plea and found him guilty of the

charged offense. After Walker pled true to the State’s punishment enhancement allegations, the

trial court sentenced him to ten years’ incarceration. Walker appeals.

Walker’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and

found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised. The brief sets out the procedural history

of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings. Meeting the

requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the

record, demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 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 February 17, 2023, counsel mailed Walker copies of the brief, the motion to

withdraw, and the appellate record. Walker was informed of his rights to review the record and

file a pro se response. By letter dated February 17, 2023, this Court informed Walker that any

pro se response was due on or before March 20, 2023. On March 6, 2023, Walker filed his pro

se response. Also on March 6, 2023, we advised Walker that this cause was set for submission

on March 27, 2023.

2 We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently

reviewed the entire appellate record and Walker’s pro se response and 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

Jeff Rambin Justice

Date Submitted: March 27, 2023 Date Decided: April 10, 2023

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, 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