David Earl Johnson v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-22-00264-CR
DAVID EARL JOHNSON,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 19th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2020-567-C1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found David Earl Johnson guilty of the felony offense of murder. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02. The trial court assessed Johnson’s punishment, enhanced by
prior convictions, at a life sentence. See id. §§ 12.32, 12.42(c)(1). This appeal ensued. We
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Johnson’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in
support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and
that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Counsel’s brief reflects a professional evaluation of the record for error and his
compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has
performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See id. at 744; High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313,
319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407–09 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all the
proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;
see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–11
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it
“lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108
(1988). In this case, Johnson filed a pro se response to the Anders brief arguing that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial court; the State then waived its
right to file a brief. After a review of the briefs and the entire record in this appeal, we
have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
MATT JOHNSON
Justice
Johnson v. State Page 2
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed June 7, 2023
Do not publish
[CRPM]
Johnson v. State Page 3