Demond Johnson v. State ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                          COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NO. 02-10-00036-CR
    NO. 02-10-00037-CR
    NO. 02-10-00038-CR
    DEMOND JOHNSON                                                      APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                       STATE
    ------------
    FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY
    ------------
    MEMORANDUM OPINION1
    ------------
    Appellant Demond Johnson waived his right to a jury and entered open
    pleas of guilt to three charges of burglary of a habitation.2 Johnson appeals his
    convictions and concurrently running sentences of ten years’ confinement. We
    will affirm.
    1
    See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
    2
    See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02 (Vernon 2003).
    Johnson’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
    withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel
    avers that, in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief
    and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a
    professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable
    grounds for relief. 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    (1967). Johnson declined to file
    a pro se brief. By letter, the State declined to submit a brief in response to the
    Anders brief.
    Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on
    the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this
    court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See
    Stafford v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State,
    
    904 S.W.2d 920
    , 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may
    we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 82–
    83, 
    109 S. Ct. 346
    , 351 (1988).
    We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with
    counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in
    the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 
    206 S.W.3d 684
    , 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to
    withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    2
    BILL MEIER
    JUSTICE
    PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and MEIER, JJ.
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
    DELIVERED: December 2, 2010
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-10-00036-CR

Filed Date: 12/2/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015