Jacob Paris v. the State of Texas

2026-08-18

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the record after independent review and determining that counsel's professional evaluation met Anders requirements.

Jacob Paris pleaded guilty to manufacturing or delivering between four and 200 grams of fentanyl as a first-degree felony and possessing a prohibited substance in a correctional facility as a third-degree felony. He admitted to enhancement allegations, and a jury sentenced him to forty years of imprisonment on both counts. Paris's appellate counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, stating the appeal lacked merit and identifying no reversible errors.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether reversible error existed in the trial court's judgment
Adequacy of counsel's Anders brief evaluation
Sufficiency of appellate record review

Procedural posture

Paris appealed his guilty plea conviction and jury-imposed sentence from the Criminal District Court No. 3 in Tarrant County to the Sixth Appellate District of Texas.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

In the

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-26-00010-CR

JACOB PARIS, Appellant

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1858536

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jacob Paris pled guilty to manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance of four grams

or more but less than 200 grams of fentanyl, a first-degree felony, and a prohibited substance in a

correctional facility, a third-degree felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN.

§ 481.1123(d) (Supp.); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.11(g) (Supp.). Paris pled true to both

enhancement allegations. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d) (Supp.). After a jury trial on

punishment, the jury assessed forty years’ imprisonment on both counts. Paris appeals.1

Paris’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

asserting that the appeal is without merit and that no reversible error appears in the record. We

have conducted an independent review of the entire record and the Anders brief. We affirm the

trial court’s judgment.

Paris’s counsel has filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no

genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief outlines the procedural

history of the case and summarizes the evidence presented during the trial court proceedings.

Since counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are

no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders. Id. at

743–44; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Counsel also filed a

motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Supp.). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Second Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.

On June 15, 2026, Paris’s counsel mailed to Paris copies of the brief and a motion to

withdraw. Paris was informed of his right to review the record, and counsel included a copy of a

motion for pro se access to the appellate record. By letter dated June 16, 2026, this Court

informed Paris that his pro se motion for access to the appellate record was due on or before July

1, 2026. We received neither a pro se motion for access to the appellate record from Paris nor a

motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.

We have reviewed the entire appellate record and have independently determined that no

reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

In the Anders context, once we determine that no reversible error exists, we must affirm the trial

court’s judgment. Id.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2

Jeff Rambin

Justice

Date Submitted: August 7, 2026

Date Decided: August 18, 2026

Do Not Publish

Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.