Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas No. 10-23-00421-CR

Jack Turner, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 12th District Court of Walker County, Texas Judge David W. Moorman, presiding Trial Court No. 30712 CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found Jack Turner guilty of aggravated robbery and burglary of a habitation. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 29.03; 30.02(d). The jury found the enhancement paragraphs true and assessed Turner’s punishment at fifty years and twenty-five years confinement respectively in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.32; 12.33; 12.42. The judge sentenced Turner accordingly and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. This appeal ensued. We affirm the trial court’s judgments for each offense.

Turner’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motion in each case 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 evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; 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).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined

Turner v. The State of Texas Page 2 the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826– (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

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

MATT JOHNSON Chief Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: February 20, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do Not Publish [CRPM]

Turner v. The State of Texas Page 3