Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-24-00358-CR

James Francis Reynolds, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 413th District Court of Johnson County, Texas Judge William C. Bosworth Jr., presiding Trial Court Cause No. DC-F202200728 JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION James Francis Reynolds pled "not true" to all violations alleged by the State in its first amended motion to revoke Reynolds’ community supervision for the third-degree felony offense of assault family violence by impeding breath. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.01(b)(2)(B). After a contested hearing on the motion, the trial court revoked Reynolds' community supervision and sentenced him to 10 years in prison. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Reynolds’ appointed counsel 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 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 Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (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; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 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, 439 n. 10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). In our review, we have paid particular attention to the issues identified in appellant’s pro se response to his counsel’s brief in support of the motion to withdraw. After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See

Reynolds v. State Page 2 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Reynolds is granted.

LEE HARRIS Justice OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: June 18, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Motion granted Do Not Publish [CR25]

Reynolds v. State Page 3