Jordan Potts v. the State of Texas

Opinion issued April 14, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-25-00471-CR
———————————
JORDAN POTTS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 338th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1737517

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted Jordan Potts of the murder of Shawtyeria Waites and

assessed a punishment of 45 years in prison.1 Potts appealed.

1
See TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.02(b)(1), (2).
Potts’s appointed counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw, along with an

Anders brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal

is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

Counsel states in his brief that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is

unable to advance any ground of error that warrants reversal. See id.; In re Schulman,

252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153,

155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel’s brief meets the

Anders requirements because it presents a professional evaluation of the record and

supplies this Court with references to the record and legal authority. See Anders, 386

U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Further, Potts’s counsel informed this Court that he mailed a copy of the

motion to withdraw and Anders brief to Potts and informed him of his right to access

the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313,

319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09.2

Potts did not file a pro se response to the Anders brief.

The State filed a waiver of its right to file a response to the Anders brief.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal. See Mitchell,

193 S.W.3d at 155. And we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record,

2
Subsequently, this Court also notified Potts at his last known address of his right to
access the record and file a response and provided a form motion to access the
record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
2
that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that the appeal is frivolous. See

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—

determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly

frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe

v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion

to withdraw.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Thomas A. Martin must

immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of

this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as

moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Guiney.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

3
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Potts of the result of this appeal and
that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). An
appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by
filing a petition for discretionary review. See id. at 827 & n.6.
3