Deondre Johnson v. the State of Texas ( 2021 )

Opinion issued November 18, 2021
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-20-00829-CR
———————————
DEONDRE JOHNSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 149th District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 83751-CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Deondre Johnson pleaded guilty to the offense of prohibited
substance/item in a correctional facility, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 38.11(g). In accordance with Appellant’s plea-bargain agreement
with the State, the trial court found sufficient evidence to find Appellant guilty and
sentenced him to ten years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court ordered the sentence of
confinement suspended and placed Appellant on community supervision for eight
years.
The State subsequently filed a petition for revocation of probated sentence,
alleging Appellant had committed thirteen violations of eight separate conditions
of his community supervision order. The State amended its petition to assert
thirty-two violations of thirteen separate conditions, but later abandoned eight of
those allegations, leaving twenty-four remaining allegations to which Appellant
pleaded not true. After a hearing, the trial court found twenty of the twenty-four
allegations true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced
Appellant to ten years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
On appeal, Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, along
with a supporting brief, stating the record presents no reversible error. He asserts
the appeal is without merit and frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements. The brief presents a
professional evaluation of the record and provides references to the record and
legal authority. Id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978). Counsel explains that after thoroughly reviewing the record, he
2
is unable to advance any grounds of error warranting reversal. See Anders, 386
U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2006, no pet.). The State waived its right to file a response and Appellant
did not respond.1
After conducting an independent review of the entire record in this appeal,
we conclude there is no reversible error in the record, there are no arguable
grounds for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744(emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full
examination of proceedings, whether appeal is frivolous); Garner v. State, 300
S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether
arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court
determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note
an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal
by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
1
The documents filed in this Court indicate Appellant’s appointed counsel provided
Appellant with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the Anders brief. At that
time, appointed counsel advised Appellant he had a right to review the trial record
at no expense and to prepare his own appellate brief. Counsel provided Appellant
with the form required to obtain a free copy of the record and the address to which
the form should be mailed.
3
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.2 Attorney John C. Caldwell must immediately send Appellant the
notice required under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of
the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Guerra.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
2
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997).
4