James Eugene Johnson v. State ( 2002 )

                                                             11th Court of Appeals

                                                                  Eastland, Texas

                                                                        Opinion

James Eugene Johnson

Appellant

Vs.                   No. 11-01-00366-CR -- Appeal from Collin County

State of Texas

Appellee

The trial court convicted appellant, upon his plea of guilty, of indecency with a child.   A plea bargain agreement was not reached.  The trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for 20 years. We affirm.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he conscientiously examines the entire record and states that, in his opinion, the appeal is without merit.  In detail, counsel outlines the proceedings in the trial court and concludes that the indictment is valid, that trial counsel provided reasonably effective assistance, and that punishment assessed was within the range authorized by law.

Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and has advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief.  A pro se brief has not been filed.  Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record.  At the time of the offense, appellant was living with Theresa Downes and her two daughters. Appellant considered Downes to be his common-law wife and had A[p]ractically raised@ her daughters.  The girls, ages 13 and 11, considered appellant to be their Afather figure.@ Appellant testified that he was not on drugs or under the influence of alcohol when he committed and videotaped the sexual acts with the girls but that he was A[j]ust being a dummy.@  The trial court rejected his pleas to have the adjudication of his guilt deferred and to place him on community supervision.  We agree that the appeal is without merit.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

July 18, 2002

Do not publish.  See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.