Jamie Oneal Blackshire v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-22-00274-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JAMIE ONEAL BLACKSHIRE, § APPEAL FROM THE 369TH
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Jamie O’Neal Blackshire appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon. 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). Appellant filed a pro se response. We affirm.

BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with endangering a child and aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon. The State filed a notice of punishment enhancement prior to trial.
Appellant pleaded “not guilty,” and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.
At trial, Officer Charles Yount testified that he was employed by the Jacksonville Police
Department in July 2019 when he observed a vehicle speed across lanes of traffic and make a
sudden stop next to his patrol vehicle. Officer Yount exited his vehicle to figure out what was
going on. He testified that the driver of the vehicle, Latysha McCuin, appeared panicked and
was covered in blood from stab wounds to the back of her head and left shoulder. Appellant then
exited the car and fled. McCuin told Officer Yount that Appellant stabbed her when he realized
she was taking him home. Appellant is the father of her children and had come to visit.
However, McCuin decided that it was time for Appellant to leave and he did not want to comply.
McCuin’s children were in the vehicle at the time of the incident, and the oldest child
corroborated the story.
McCuin’s children testified at trial that Appellant stabbed their mother. McCuin denied
the incident at trial, insisting that she fell and hurt herself. She also testified that she did not
“press charges” against Appellant and that she signed an affidavit of non-prosecution. Appellant
did not testify at trial; however, his custodial interview was admitted into evidence in which he
claimed the incident was an accident.
The jury ultimately found Appellant “not guilty” of endangering a child and “guilty” of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. At punishment, Appellant pleaded “true” to the
enhancement paragraphs. The jury assessed punishment at seventeen years confinement and a
$10,000 fine. 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 relates that he reviewed the record and found no arguable grounds for
appeal. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1978), Appellant’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds to be advanced.
Appellant contends in his pro se response that his trial counsel was ineffective. 1
Specifically, he urges his trial counsel failed to interview the victim in person and failed to offer
affidavits of non-prosecution into evidence. He further argues that the evidence is insufficient to
support his conviction.
When faced with an Anders brief and a pro se response by an appellant, an appellate
court can either (1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining
that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) determine that arguable

1
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).

2
grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be
appointed to brief the issues. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION
After conducting an independent examination of the record, we find no reversible error
and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See id. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court.
As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991), Appellant’s counsel has 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 and now grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.
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
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 the date of either this
opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing is 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 February 22, 2024.
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

FEBRUARY 22, 2024

NO. 12-22-00274-CR

JAMIE ONEAL BLACKSHIRE,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 369th District Court
of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 21338)

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 Neeley, J.