Jolee Marie Lowe v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 9, 2025
• Docket: 09-24-00395-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-24-00395-CR ________________

JOLEE MARIE LOWE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 28241 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In an open plea, appellant Jolee Marie Lowe pleaded guilty to possession of a

controlled substance, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann.

§ 481.115(a), (d). After conducting a sentencing hearing, the trial court assessed

Lowe’s punishment at ten years of confinement.

Lowe’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. See

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). On March 31, 2025, we granted an extension of time for Lowe to

file a pro se brief. We received no response from Lowe.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed

the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably

support the appeal. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it

considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error

but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new

counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

1 Lowe may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition of discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.1. 2 AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT Justice

Submitted on July 7, 2025 Opinion Delivered July 9, 2025 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.