Kellian Antonio Jones v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
• Decided: June 4, 2026
• Docket: 02-25-00223-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-25-00223-CR ___________________________

KELLIAN ANTONIO JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 396th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1835724

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker MEMORANDUM OPINION

In August 2024, Appellant Kellian Antonio Jones pleaded guilty to the

first-degree felony offense of aggravated sexual assault with a deadly weapon, and the

trial court placed him on eight years’ deferred adjudication community supervision. See

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42A.053; Tex. Penal Code § 22.021. In April 2025, the State

filed a petition to adjudicate, alleging that Jones had violated a condition of his

community supervision by failing to complete a required sex offender treatment

program. On June 30, 2025, Jones pleaded true to the allegation, and the trial court

found Jones guilty and sentenced him to 40 years’ confinement. See Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. art. 42A.053; Tex. Penal Code § 12.32. Jones appealed.

Jones’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as

counsel and a brief in support of that motion, having determined that the appeal

presents no arguable points. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct.

1396, 1400 (1967). We agree. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of

Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there

are no arguable grounds for relief. See id. In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel

notified Jones of the motion to withdraw, provided him with a copy of the brief,

informed him of his right to file a pro se response, took concrete measures to facilitate

Jones’s review of the appellate record, and informed him of his right to seek

discretionary review should this court hold that the appeal is frivolous. See 436 S.W.3d

313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

2 This court afforded Jones an opportunity to file a pro se response, but he has

not done so. The State filed a letter in lieu of a brief declining to formally respond but

agreeing with Jones’s counsel that the appeal contained no arguable points.

We have independently examined the record, as is our duty when appointed

counsel files an Anders brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State,

904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). After carefully

reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly

frivolous and without merit. Our independent review of the record reveals nothing

further that might arguably support an appeal. See Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685

n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28.

Accordingly, we grant Jones’s attorney’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: June 4, 2026