Jonathan Bennie Brown v. the State of Texas

2026-08-25

Summary · law.co

Holding. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the appeal wholly frivolous and without merit, and granted appellate counsel's motion to withdraw.

Jonathan Bennie Brown pleaded guilty to theft of service valued between $2,500 and $30,000, a state-jail felony. The trial court convicted him and imposed a fifteen-month sentence. Brown appealed, represented by appellate counsel who filed an Anders brief concluding that no arguable issues existed for appeal and requesting permission to withdraw.

The appellate court conducted its own independent review of the record and agreed with counsel's assessment that the appeal lacked merit and presented no reversible error. The court followed Anders procedures by confirming that Brown received copies of the brief, was informed of his appellate rights, and was given the opportunity to file a pro se response, which he did not do.

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

Key issues

Whether the appellate record contained any arguable grounds for reversal
Compliance with Anders v. California procedures for frivolous appeals
Adequacy of appellate counsel's professional evaluation and withdrawal request

Procedural posture

This is an appeal from a guilty plea and conviction in the County Court at Law, brought before the Sixth Appellate District of Texas with appellate counsel filing an Anders brief and seeking to withdraw.

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. 06-26-00029-CR

JONATHAN BENNIE BROWN, Appellant

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 56838-CCL2

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

Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jonathan Bennie Brown entered an open plea of guilty to the state-jail felony of theft

of service of the value of $2,500.00 or more but less than $30,000.00. See TEX. PENAL CODE

ANN. § 31.03(e)(4)(A) (Supp.). The trial court found Brown guilty of the charged offense

and, after a punishment hearing, sentenced him to fifteen months’ incarceration. Brown

appeals.

Brown’s appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that she reviewed the record and

found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the

procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the

trial court proceedings. Since appellate 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 v. California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44

(1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding);

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573

S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Appellate counsel also filed a

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

In the Anders brief, appellate counsel certified that copies of the brief and the motion

to withdraw were delivered to Brown, that Brown was informed of his rights to review the

record and file a pro se response, that appellate counsel provided Brown a copy of the

appellate record, and appellate counsel informed Brown of his right to seek discretionary

review, if necessary. By letter dated July 17, 2026, this Court informed Brown that the case

would be set for submission on August 7. We received neither a pro se response from Brown

nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently

reviewed the entire appellate record and, like appellate counsel, have determined that no

arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit,

we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Id.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1

Charles van Cleef

Justice

Date Submitted: August 7, 2026

Date Decided: August 25, 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, the 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.