Patrick Darrell Gibson v. the State of Texas
Docket 03-25-00387-CR
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Docket
- 03-25-00387-CR
Appeal from adjudication of guilt and revocation of deferred-adjudication community supervision following a guilty plea
Summary
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment adjudicating Patrick Darrell Gibson guilty of possession of a controlled substance and revoking his deferred-adjudication community supervision after Gibson pleaded true to the revocation allegations. Gibson was originally placed on deferred adjudication following a guilty plea; the State later moved to revoke supervision, he admitted the allegations, and the trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced him to 240 days in jail. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal is frivolous; the appeals court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed.
Issues Decided
- Whether there were any non-frivolous appellate issues to challenge the trial court’s adjudication of guilt and revocation of community supervision.
- Whether counsel properly fulfilled duties under Anders when seeking to withdraw on the ground the appeal is frivolous.
Court's Reasoning
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting a professional review of the record and concluding no arguable grounds exist. The court independently reviewed the record, found nothing that could arguably support the appeal, and noted counsel complied with procedural obligations to inform the defendant and provide access to the record. Because no meritorious issues were identified, the court concluded the appeal is frivolous and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California386 U.S. 738 (1967)
- Garner v. State300 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)
- Kelly v. State436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)
Parties
- Appellant
- Patrick Darrell Gibson
- Appellee
- The State of Texas
- Judge
- Tommy LaFon
- Judge
- Karin Crump
Key Dates
- Opinion filed
- 2026-05-05
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult appellate counsel about discretionary review
If Gibson believes there are arguable legal issues not raised, he should consult a lawyer immediately about filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and check the applicable deadline.
- 2
Consider post-conviction options
If there are factual or jurisdictional errors, Gibson may discuss potential post-conviction remedies such as writs or motions with counsel to determine if any remain available.
- 3
Serve sentence and comply with court orders
Absent successful further review, Gibson should make arrangements to comply with the jail sentence and any conditions set by the trial court.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the appeals court decide?
- The court affirmed the trial court’s adjudication of guilt, the revocation of deferred adjudication, and the 240-day jail sentence because it found no valid grounds to overturn the decision.
- What is an Anders brief and why was it filed?
- An Anders brief is filed by appointed counsel who, after a full review, believes an appeal is frivolous; it explains why there are no arguable issues and asks to withdraw. The court independently reviews the record to confirm that conclusion.
- Can Gibson still take further action?
- Gibson may seek discretionary review to a higher court (such as the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals) if permitted, but the appeals court’s finding that the appeal is frivolous makes such relief unlikely without showing a non-frivolous issue.
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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-25-00387-CR
Patrick Darrell Gibson, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE 119TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY
NO. B-20-0794-SA, THE HONORABLE TOMMY LAFON, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Patrick Darrell Gibson was charged with the state jail felony offense of possession
of a controlled substance. See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.115(b). After he pleaded guilty
under a plea agreement, the trial court deferred his adjudication of guilt and placed him on
deferred adjudication community supervision for four years. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts.
42A.101, .103. A few months later, the State filed a motion to revoke his community
supervision. He pleaded true to the revocation allegations. Following a hearing, the trial court
adjudicated his guilt, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to 240 days in jail.
See id. arts. 42A.108, .110; Tex. Penal Code § 12.35. He appealed the trial court’s judgment
adjudicating his guilt.
Gibson’s court-appointed attorney on appeal filed a motion to withdraw supported
by an Anders brief contending that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Gibson’s court-appointed attorney’s brief meets the
requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating
that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id.; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766
(Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988) (explaining that
Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact
conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”).
Gibson’s counsel represented to the Court that she provided copies of the motion and brief to
Gibson; advised Gibson of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and
pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided
Gibson with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing
address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Gibson did not file a pro se brief and did not request an extension of time to do so.
We have independently reviewed the record and considered Gibson’s appellate
brief filed by counsel, and we have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree with counsel that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the
trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt and revoking community supervision.
__________________________________________
Karin Crump, Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Crump and Ellis
Affirmed
Filed: May 5, 2026
Do Not Publish
2