Patrick Darrell Gibson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
• Decided: May 5, 2026
• Docket: 03-25-00387-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00387-CR

Patrick Darrell Gibson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 119TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY NO. B-20-0794-SA, THE HONORABLE TOMMY LAFON, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Patrick Darrell Gibson was charged with the state jail felony offense of possession

of a controlled substance. See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.115(b). After he pleaded guilty

under a plea agreement, the trial court deferred his adjudication of guilt and placed him on

deferred adjudication community supervision for four years. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts.

42A.101, .103. A few months later, the State filed a motion to revoke his community

supervision. He pleaded true to the revocation allegations. Following a hearing, the trial court

adjudicated his guilt, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to 240 days in jail.

See id. arts. 42A.108, .110; Tex. Penal Code § 12.35. He appealed the trial court’s judgment

adjudicating his guilt.

Gibson’s court-appointed attorney on appeal filed a motion to withdraw supported

by an Anders brief contending that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Gibson’s court-appointed attorney’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating

that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id.; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766

(Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988) (explaining that

Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact

conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”).

Gibson’s counsel represented to the Court that she provided copies of the motion and brief to

Gibson; advised Gibson of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and

pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided

Gibson with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing

address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Gibson did not file a pro se brief and did not request an extension of time to do so.

We have independently reviewed the record and considered Gibson’s appellate

brief filed by counsel, and we have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. See

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree with counsel that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the

trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt and revoking community supervision.

__________________________________________ Karin Crump, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Crump and Ellis

Affirmed

Filed: May 5, 2026

Do Not Publish