Jacob Floyd Shelton v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed June 27, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-23-00175-CR
__________

JACOB FLOYD SHELTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 29th District Court
Palo Pinto County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 17380

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Jacob Floyd Shelton, entered an open plea of guilty to the offense
of failing to comply with sex offender registration requirements, a third-degree
felony. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.102 (West 2018). The trial court
accepted Appellant’s plea, found him guilty, and recessed for a later punishment and
sentencing hearing. At the hearing, the State called six witnesses, and offered
Appellant’s police interview and prior judgment of conviction. Appellant’s father
and a friend of Appellant testified on his behalf. The trial court assessed his
punishment at confinement for five years in the Correctional Institutions Division of
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a $1,500 fine.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his
right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief, and of his right to
file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. As such, court-
appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following
the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed
the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit.1
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE
June 27, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

1
We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
2