Jacob Wayne Peek v. the State of Texas
Docket 04-24-00732-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
- 04-24-00732-CR
Appeal from the trial court's sentencing after defendant entered an open plea of no contest to indecency with a child by sexual contact
Summary
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment sentencing Jacob Wayne Peek after he entered an open plea of no contest to indecency with a child by sexual contact. Peek was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment, to run consecutively to a separate thirty-year sentence for an aggravated sexual assault conviction that is not at issue here. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting there were no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal; Peek filed a pro se brief and the State responded. The appellate court reviewed the record and briefs, found the appeal frivolous, granted counsel's motion to withdraw, and affirmed.
Issues Decided
- Whether the record presented any nonfrivolous appellate issues arising from Peek's no-contest plea and sentence for indecency with a child by sexual contact.
- Whether appellate counsel properly complied with Anders procedures when seeking to withdraw.
Court's Reasoning
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief explaining, with citations to the record, that there were no arguable grounds for appeal. The court followed controlling Texas authority requiring review of the record and any pro se filings, and it found no meritorious issues. Because the Anders brief satisfied procedural requirements and the court independently reviewed the record and Peek's pro se brief, 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)
- Kelly v. State436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)
- Bledsoe v. State178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)
Parties
- Appellant
- Jacob Wayne Peek
- Appellee
- The State of Texas
- Judge
- Honorable Jennifer Dillingham
- Judge
- Irene Rios
Key Dates
- Opinion delivered and filed
- 2026-04-22
- Appellant's motion for new counsel denied
- 2025-11-14
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider filing a petition for discretionary review
If Peek wants further review, he must file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty days of this opinion or the denial of any timely rehearing motion.
- 2
Retain appellate counsel if seeking review
Peek should consider retaining an attorney experienced in post-conviction appellate practice to assist with a petition for discretionary review or other post-conviction remedies.
- 3
Request record or assistance for pro se filing
If proceeding pro se, Peek may use the record already provided and should follow the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure when preparing any petition for discretionary review.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the appeals court decide?
- The appeals court affirmed the trial court's sentence of twenty years for indecency with a child, finding no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
- Does this affect the separate thirty-year sentence?
- No. The opinion notes the thirty-year sentence for aggravated sexual assault is not before the court and is not addressed in this appeal.
- Why did the court allow counsel to withdraw?
- Appellate counsel followed Anders procedures, filed a brief saying no nonfrivolous appeals existed, and the court agreed after reviewing the record, so counsel was permitted to withdraw.
- Can Peek seek further review?
- Yes. Peek may file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty days of this opinion or the overruling of any timely rehearing motion.
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. 04-24-00732-CR
Jacob Wayne PEEK,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas
Trial Court No. CRW2205120
Honorable Jennifer Dillingham, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 22, 2026
AFFIRMED
Appellant Jacob Wayne Peek entered an open plea of no contest/nolo contendere and
signed written plea admonishments, waivers, and a judicial confession of guilt for committing
indecency with a child by sexual contact. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced
Peek to twenty years’ imprisonment. Peek appeals. 1
1
During a combined plea proceeding, Peek also plead no contest/nolo contendere to the aggravated sexual assault of
a child pursuant to a plea agreement with the State in exchange for its recommendation to the trial court to cap his
punishment at thirty years in prison. After accepting the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Peek to thirty years’
04-24-00732-CR
Peek’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 Peek and
informed Peek of his right to review, the procedure for obtaining the record, and file a pro se brief.
This court subsequently set a deadline for Peek to file a pro se brief. Peek then requested a copy
of the record, which this court provided to him. Subsequently, Peek filed a pro se brief, and the
State filed a brief in response.
We have reviewed the appellate record, the Anders brief, Peek’s pro se brief, and the State’s
brief. 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. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-
86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
imprisonment for the aggravated sexual assault of a child. The trial court ordered Peek’s twenty-year sentence for
indecency with a child by sexual contact herein to run consecutively to his thirty-year sentence for the aggravated
sexual assault of a child. Peek’s aggravated sexual assault of a child conviction is not at issue in this appeal; and
therefore, we do not address it any further.
-2-
04-24-00732-CR
No substitute counsel will be appointed. 2 Should Peek 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.
Irene Rios, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
2
We also deny Peek’s November 14, 2025 motion for appointment of new counsel.
-3-