Jerrett Lamar Devont Grant v. the State of Texas

No. 06-25-00152-CR · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana · May 6, 2026 · No. No. 06-25-00152-CR

Summary

The Sixth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court’s judgment adjudicating Jerrett Lamar Devont Grant’s guilt and sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment for violating a deferred-adjudication community-supervision condition. Grant’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw, and the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issue supporting reversal. The court granted counsel’s withdrawal and affirmed the judgment.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
Writing for the Court
Scott E. Stevens, Chief Justice; Randy van Cleef, Justice; Rambin, Justice
Jurisdiction
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
Decision date
May 6, 2026
Docket number
No. 06-25-00152-CR
Procedural posture
Appeal from the adjudication of guilt and five-year prison sentence imposed after the trial court found that appellant violated deferred-adjudication community supervision.
Standard of review
In an Anders appeal, the appellate court independently reviews the entire record to determine whether any arguable issue supports the appeal; if the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit, the court must affirm the trial court's judgment.
Precedential value
Nonprecedential memorandum opinion; marked Do Not Publish.
Parties
Jerrett Lamar Devont Grant v. The State of Texas
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

appellate procedurecriminal procedureprobationstandard of review

Practice areas

criminal appellate procedurecriminal proceduredeferred adjudicationAnders appeals

Questions Presented

  1. Whether appointed appellate counsel's Anders brief adequately demonstrated that no genuinely arguable issue existed for appeal.
  2. Whether the appellate record contained any arguable issue or reversible error requiring reversal of the adjudication of guilt or sentence.
  3. Whether counsel should be permitted to withdraw after the court determined that the appeal was wholly frivolous.

Holdings

  1. Counsel's professional evaluation of the record, explaining why no arguable grounds for appeal existed, satisfied the requirements of Anders v. California.
  2. The appeal was wholly frivolous, and no arguable issue supported reversal.
  3. Counsel's request to withdraw was granted, and no substitute counsel would be appointed.

Key quotations

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal.
In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Factual background

Grant pleaded guilty to assault of a pregnant person, a third-degree felony, and was placed on ten years of deferred-adjudication community supervision. The State alleged that he violated a supervision condition requiring him to pay a $30 monthly community-supervision fee even though he had the ability to pay. Grant pleaded true, after which the trial court adjudicated his guilt and imposed a five-year prison sentence.

Procedural history

Grant pleaded guilty to assault of a pregnant person and received ten years of deferred-adjudication community supervision under a plea bargain. The State moved to adjudicate guilt based on Grant's failure to pay a $30 monthly supervision fee despite having the ability to pay; Grant pleaded true. The trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw. Grant did not file a pro se response, and the court independently reviewed the record and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…