Dominique Ramone Johnson v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00316-CR
__________________
DOMINIQUE RAMONE JOHNSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 9th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 22-03-03391-CR
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A grand jury indicted Appellant Dominique Ramone Johnson for evading
arrest or detention with a motor vehicle, and the indictment included a paragraph
alleging that Johnson had been previously convicted of a felony. 1 See Tex. Penal
Code Ann. § 38.04(b)(2)(A). Johnson waived his right to counsel and pleaded not
guilty. The jury found Johnson guilty as charged in the indictment and found that
1
The jury also found Johnson guilty of aggravated assault of a public servant
in trial cause number 22-03-03390-CR, but that conviction is not part of this appeal.
1
during the commission of the offense or during immediate flight he used or exhibited
a deadly weapon, namely a motor vehicle. After Johnson pleaded true to the
enhancement allegation, the trial court sentenced Johnson to twenty years of
imprisonment. Johnson timely filed his appeal.
On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he
has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and
applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We
granted an extension of time for Johnson to file a pro se brief, and we received no
response from Johnson.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination
of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson
v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed
the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably
support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it
considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error
but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new
2
counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2
AFFIRMED.
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on September 8, 2023
Opinion Delivered September 13, 2023
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
2
Johnson may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
3