Kendrick Jarrell Smith v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 18, 2025
• Docket: 10-24-00267-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-24-00267-CR

Kendrick Jarrell Smith, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 13th District Court of Navarro County, Texas Judge Amanda Doan Putman, presiding Trial Court Cause No. C41893-CR

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kendrick Jarrell Smith was charged in an eight-count indictment with

the felony offenses of assault on a peace officer (Count One), unlawful

possession of a firearm by a felon (Count Two), retaliation (Counts Three and

Four), harassment of a public servant (Counts Five, Six, and Seven), and

evading arrest with a prior conviction (Count Eight). See TEX. PENAL CODE

ANN. §§ 22.01(b-2), 22.11, 36.06, 38.04(b)(1), 46.04(a)(1). Each offense was enhanced with various prior final felony convictions that elevated the

respective punishment ranges by one degree. See id. at §§ 12.42, 12.425. The

State dismissed Count Six, and Smith entered open pleas of guilty to Counts

One through Five, Count Seven, and Count Eight, and pled “true” to the

enhancement paragraphs for each offense. Following a sentencing hearing,

the trial court assessed Smith’s punishment at twenty years in prison on Count

One, sixteen years in prison on Count Two, fourteen years in prison on Counts

Three, Four, Five, and Seven, and six years in prison on Count Eight. This

appeal followed.

Smith’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders

brief in support of the motion, asserting that he has diligently reviewed the

appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s

brief demonstrates a professional evaluation of the record for error and he has

demonstrated compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. See id.

at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]

1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014);

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Smith filed a

pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. The State filed a brief in response.

Kendrick Jarrell Smith v. The State of Texas Page 2 In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must conduct a full examination of

the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Anders,

386 U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 349-50, 102

L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). Arguments are frivolous when they “cannot conceivably

persuade the court.” McCoy v. Ct. of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436 (1988). We

have reviewed the entire record, counsel's brief, Smith’s pro se response, and

the State’s brief, and we find that the record contains no reversible error and

the appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005).

Although counsel does not mention this in his brief, we observe that the

judgment of conviction in Count Two lists the incorrect offense of conviction,

statute for the offense, and degree of offense. The judgment currently reflects

that Smith was convicted of the offense of “Unlawful Carry Weapon w/ Felony

Conviction,” a second-degree felony pursuant to section 46.02(e)(1) of the Penal

Code. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.02(e)(1). However, Smith was charged

in Count Two with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon pursuant to

section 46.04(a) of the Penal Code, a third-degree felony. See id. at §§ 46.04(a),

(e).1 Smith’s plea paperwork reflects his judicial confession to the offense of

1 Count Two of the indictment charges that Smith:

did then and there, having been convicted of the felony offense of Possession of a Controlled Substance, Penalty Group 1, less than One Gram, on April 25, 2019, in

Kendrick Jarrell Smith v. The State of Texas Page 3 unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, and the trial court admonished

Smith regarding the unenhanced and enhanced punishment ranges applicable

to this offense. We modify the judgment in Count Two as follows: (1) the

offense of conviction shall be amended to “Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by

a Felon;” (2) the statute for the offense shall be amended to “46.04(e) Penal

Code;” and (3) the degree of offense shall be listed as a third-degree felony. See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.01, § 1(13), (14); Cummins v. State, 646

S.W.3d 605, 617-18 (Tex. App.—Waco 2022, pet. ref’d).

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments in Count One, Count

Three, Count Four, Count Five, Count Seven, and Count Eight. We modify the

trial court’s judgment in Count Two as outlined above, and we affirm the

judgment as modified.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Smith is granted.

STEVE SMITH Justice

cause number C38926 in the County Court at Law of Navarro County, Texas, intentionally and knowingly possess a firearm before the fifth anniversary of the defendant’s release from confinement following conviction of the felony.

Kendrick Jarrell Smith v. The State of Texas Page 4 OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: September 18, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed; Affirmed as modified; Motion granted Do not publish CR25

Kendrick Jarrell Smith v. The State of Texas Page 5