Antonio Lee Grey v. the State of Texas
Docket 04-25-00078-CR
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Docket
- 04-25-00078-CR
Appeal from revocation of deferred adjudication community supervision and adjudication of guilt in an aggravated-assault-with-a-deadly-weapon case
Summary
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment revoking Antonio Lee Grey's deferred adjudication community supervision and adjudicating him guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Grey had pleaded true to a supervision violation at the revocation hearing; the trial court revoked supervision and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal and moved to withdraw; Grey did not file a pro se brief. The appellate court reviewed the record and concluded the appeal is frivolous and without merit, granted counsel's motion, and affirmed.
Issues Decided
- Whether there were arguable grounds to challenge the trial court's revocation of community supervision and adjudication of guilt after Grey pleaded true to violating a condition of supervision.
- Whether appellate counsel properly complied with Anders procedures and whether the appeal is frivolous.
Court's Reasoning
Grey admitted (pled true) to violating a condition of his community supervision, giving the trial court a factual basis to revoke supervision and adjudicate guilt. Appellate counsel submitted an Anders brief explaining, with record citations, that no nonfrivolous appellate issues exist, and the court found the brief and procedure compliant with controlling authority. Because the record and Anders brief showed no arguable grounds for reversal, the court concluded the appeal was frivolous and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California386 U.S. 738 (1967)
- High v. State573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)
- Bledsoe v. State178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)
Parties
- Appellant
- Antonio Lee Grey
- Appellee
- The State of Texas
- Judge
- Benjamin Robertson
- Judge
- Adrian A. Spears II
Key Dates
- Initial plea and deferred adjudication
- 2023-01-20
- State's motion to adjudicate filed
- 2024-08-27
- Trial court adjudication and sentence
- 2025-01-28
- Appellate decision filed
- 2026-04-15
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider petition for discretionary review
If Grey wants further review, he must file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty days or retain counsel to do so.
- 2
Consult counsel about post-conviction options
Grey should consult an attorney about potential post-conviction relief options, deadlines, or clemency proceedings if he wishes to challenge the sentence or conviction further.
- 3
Prepare for incarceration compliance
Unless relief is obtained, Grey should prepare to begin serving his four-year sentence and comply with any related court or correctional directives.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the appeals court decide?
- The court affirmed the trial court's revocation of Grey's community supervision and his four-year sentence, finding no nonfrivolous appellate issues.
- Why was the appeal dismissed as frivolous?
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief showing there were no arguable legal errors to challenge, Grey did not file his own brief, and the court agreed the appeal lacked merit.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Antonio Lee Grey is directly affected; his adjudication of guilt and four-year prison sentence remain in effect.
- Can this decision be reviewed again?
- Yes. Grey may seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals by filing a petition for discretionary review within thirty days of this opinion or obtain counsel to file one on his behalf.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-25-00078-CR
Antonio Lee GREY,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2022CR5530
Honorable Benjamin Robertson, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Adrian A. Spears II, Justice
Sitting: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Adrian A. Spears II, Justice
H. Todd McCray, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 15, 2026
AFFIRMED
On January 20, 2023, after pleading nolo contendere to the charge of aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon, Antonio Lee Grey was placed on deferred adjudication community
supervision for a period of five years. On August 27, 2024, the State filed a motion to enter
adjudication of guilt and revoke Grey’s community supervision. At the revocation hearing, Grey
pled true to having violated a condition of his community supervision. On January 28, 2025, the
04-25-00078-CR
trial court granted the State’s motion to revoke, adjudicated Grey guilty, and sentenced Grey to
four years of imprisonment. Grey appealed.
Grey’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). With citations to the record and legal
authority, counsel’s brief explains why no arguable points of error exist for review and concludes
that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See id. at 744-45; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807
(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional
evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45;
High, 573 S.W.2d at 812-13. In compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel certified that he served copies of the brief and motion to
withdraw on Grey, informed Grey of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief, and
provided Grey with a copy of the appellate record. This court subsequently set a deadline for Grey
to file a pro se brief. Grey did not file a pro se brief.
After reviewing the appellate record, the Anders brief, and the State’s response, we
conclude that there are no arguable grounds for appeal, and the appeal is wholly frivolous and
without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (noting court
of appeals should not address merits of issues raised in Anders brief or pro se response, but should
only determine if the appeal is frivolous). Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and
grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. 1 See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex.
1
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Grey wish to seek further review by the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for
discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this
opinion or from “the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was
overruled by the court of appeals.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with
the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply
with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
-2-
04-25-00078-CR
App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 1996, no pet.).
Adrian A. Spears II, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-