James Bart Jordan v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

NO. 12-22-00081-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
JAMES BART JORDAN, § APPEAL FROM THE 411TH
APPELLANT
§ DISTRICT COURT
V.
§ POLK COUNTY, TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
James Bart Jordan appeals his conviction for intentionally inflicting bodily injury on a
child. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.
1969). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with injury to a child––bodily injury with intent.1
Appellant pleaded “not guilty,” and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.
At trial, J.J. testified that on February 24, 2021,2 his mother and Appellant, his father,
were arguing in the living room of his mother’s home. J.J. stated that he went into the living
room to see what was going on and soon began arguing with Appellant. According to J.J., the
argument escalated, and Appellant struck him in the face several times, punched him in his body,
pulled his hair, and took him to the ground. J.J. testified that his mother and sister were able to
pull Appellant off him, at which point, he, his mother, and his sister drove to his grandmother’s
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04(a)(3), (f) (West Supp. 2022).
2
J.J. testified that he was, then, fourteen-years-old. See id. § 22.04(c)(1).
house where they called police. J.J. stated that when Appellant hit him and pulled his hair, it
caused him pain.
Following the presentation of evidence and argument of counsel, the jury found
Appellant “guilty” as charged, and the matter proceeded to a trial on punishment. Ultimately, the
jury assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for five years. The trial court sentenced
Appellant accordingly, and this appeal followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel states that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the
opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal
can be predicated. He further relates that he is well-acquainted with the facts in this case. In
compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of
the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for
appeal.3 We likewise have reviewed the record for reversible error and found none.
CONCLUSION
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits.
Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five
days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise
him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
3
In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief,
notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response,
and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief
has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.
2
discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this
opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should
comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered May 10, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
3
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
MAY 10, 2023
NO. 12-22-00081-CR
JAMES BART JORDAN,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 411th District Court
of Polk County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR21-0090)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of
the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and J., Neeley