Thomas Deshone v. State
Opinion
V.
Before QUINN, REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Appellant Thomas Deshone appealed from the revocation of his community supervision. By opinion dated August 17, 2004, this Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. Pending before us now is appellant's motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal and issue mandate. Having previously disposed of this appeal, appellant's request for dismissal is moot. No motion for rehearing will be entertained; however, per his request, our mandate will issue forthwith.
Don H. Reavis
Justice
Do not publish.
} } function WPHide( WPid ) { if( bInlineFloats ) eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'hidden'" ); }
NO. 07-07-0045-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
MAY 7, 2008
______________________________
JACK LINDSEY JORDAN, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;
NO. 18,671-B; HONORABLE JOHN BOARD, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Jack Lindsey Jordan appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery and aggravated kidnapping and life sentence in prison. His court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief. We will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
According to evidence presented at trial, appellant entered the Amarillo residence of Dr. Steven Berk through an unlocked door and encountered Dr. Berk in his upstairs study. Dr. Berk testified appellant trained a shotgun on him and said he needed money. Dr. Berk gave him $160 but appellant nonetheless ordered Dr. Berk at gunpoint to drive appellant’s vehicle in search of an ATM machine for more cash. After Dr. Berk told appellant he did not know the personal identification number required for an ATM transaction, appellant instructed him to return to the residence.
Dr. Berk testified that, when they returned to the residence, he gave appellant some of his wife’s jewelry and her wallet, after appellant threatened to kill him. Appellant then drove with Dr. Berk to Bushland, Texas, near Amarillo, where appellant used a credit card belonging to Dr. Berk to buy fuel. Appellant released Dr. Berk near Bushland with the warning that he would kill him and his family if he reported the events of that morning to the police. Dr. Berk flagged down a motorist who allowed him to use her cellphone. He telephoned law enforcement officials.
Evidence showed appellant proceeded west to Albuquerque and then to Arizona, where he was apprehended after a high-speed chase. Federal Bureau of Investigation agents testified to the oral statement appellant made to them after receiving a written Miranda warning, in which statement appellant admitted to many of the same facts to which Dr. Berk testified.
The jury found appellant guilty of the indicted offenses, aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery, enhanced by a prior felony. Appellant plead true to the enhancement paragraph. Following the presentation of evidence at the punishment phase, which included the lengthy testimony of appellant, the jury assessed punishment at life in prison and a $10,000 fine on each count. The court denied the State’s motion to cumulate sentences. The trial court certified appellant’s right to appeal and appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
In his motion to withdraw and Anders brief, appellant’s court-appointed counsel certifies he diligently reviewed the record and, in his professional opinion, under the controlling authorities and facts of this case, no reversible error or legitimate grounds for predicating a non-frivolous appeal exist. The brief discusses the procedural history of the case and the proceedings. Counsel discusses five potential appellate issues, explaining why he finds each without merit. He also certifies that a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw were served on appellant, along with notice of appellant’s right to review the record and file a pro se response. Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex.App.–Waco 1994, pet. ref'd). Appellant filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief.
When court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he concludes no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we review the record and make an independent determination. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (the appellate court, and not counsel, after full examination of the record, determines whether the case is “wholly frivolous”); accord, Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005); Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). We consider an appellant’s pro se response to an Anders brief, but we do not rule on the ultimate merits of the response. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27 (an appellant would be denied meaningful assistance of appellate counsel were the court of appeals to address and reject the merits of an appellant’s pro se response to an Anders brief); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155-56.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Thomas Deshone v. State (Thomas Deshone v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.