Jordan O'Neal Vandyke v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 14, 2024
Docket14-22-00697-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Jordan O'Neal Vandyke v. the State of Texas (Jordan O'Neal Vandyke v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jordan O'Neal Vandyke v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 14, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00697-CR

JORDAN O'NEAL VANDYKE, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 149th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 92018-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant appeals the adjudication of his guilt for the third-degree felony offense of Assault Family Member Impeding Breath and the second-degree felony offense of Assault Peace Officer. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(b)(2)(B) and Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(b-2). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant’s request, the record was provided to him. Appellant did not file a pro se response to counsel’s brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jordan O'Neal Vandyke v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordan-oneal-vandyke-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.